the ability to solve emotional problems

Emotional Intelligence as an Ability: Theory, Challenges, and New Directions

• Open Access
• First Online: 14 July 2018

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Marina Fiori 6 &
• Ashley K. Vesely-Maillefer 6  

Part of the book series: The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality ((SSHE))

37k Accesses

33 Citations

11 Altmetric

• The original version of this chapter was revised. The correction to this chapter is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90633-1_17

About 25 years ago emotional intelligence (EI) was first introduced to the scientific community. In this chapter, we provide a general framework for understanding EI conceptualized as an ability. We start by identifying the origins of the construct rooted in the intelligence literature and the foundational four-branch model of ability EI, then describe the most commonly employed measures of EI as ability, and critically review predictive validity evidence. We further approach current challenges, including the difficulties of scoring answers as “correct” in the emotional sphere, and open a discussion on how to increase the incremental validity of ability EI. We finally suggest new directions by introducing a distinction between a crystallized component of EI, based on knowledge of emotions, and a fluid component, based on the processing of emotion information.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Current Concepts in the Assessment of Emotional Intelligence

Rasch model analysis of the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding – brief in a large Portuguese sample

Working memory updating of emotional stimuli predicts emotional intelligence in females

• Emotional intelligence
• Crystallized EI
• Emotion information processing
• Emotion knowledge

Research in the domains of psychology, education, and organizational behavior in the past 30 years has been characterized by a resurgence of interest for emotions, opening the door to new conceptualizations of intelligence that point to the role of emotions in guiding intelligent thinking (e.g., Bower, 1981 ; Zajonc, 1980 ). Earlier work often raised concern surrounding the compatibility between logic and emotion, and the potential interference of emotion in rational behavior, as they were considered to be in “opposition” (e.g., Lloyd, 1979 ). Research shifted into the study of how cognition and emotional processes could interact to enhance thinking, in which context Salovey and Mayer first introduced the construct of emotional intelligence (EI). Their initial definition described EI as the “ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990 , p. 189).

The definition of EI was heavily influenced by early work focused on describing, defining, and assessing socially competent behavior such as social intelligence (Thorndike, 1920 ). The attempt to understand social intelligence led to further inquiries by theorists such as Gardner ( 1983 ) and Sternberg ( 1988 ), who proposed more inclusive approaches to understanding general intelligence. Gardner’s concepts of intrapersonal intelligence , namely, the ability to know one’s emotions, and interpersonal intelligence, which is the ability to understand other individuals’ emotions and intentions, aided in the development of later models in which EI was originally introduced as a subset of social intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990 ). Further prehistory to EI involved the investigation of the relation of social intelligence to alexithymia , a clinical construct defined by difficulties recognizing, understanding, and describing emotions (e.g., MacLean, 1949 ; Nemiah, Freyberger, & Sifneos, 1976 ), as well as research examining the ability to recognize facial emotions and expressions (Ekman, Friesen, & Ancoli, 1980 ).

EI was popularized in the 1990s by Daniel Goleman’s ( 1995 ) best-selling book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ , as well as through a number of other popular books (e.g., Cooper & Sawaf, 1997 ). However, the lack of empirical evidence available at the time to support the “exciting” statements and claims about the importance of EI in understanding human behavior and individual differences (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998 ) prompted critiques and further investigation into the construct. Major psychological factors such as intelligence, temperament, personality, information processing, and emotional self-regulation have been considered in the conceptualization of EI, leading to a general consensus that EI may be multifaceted and could be studied from different perspectives (Austin, Saklofske, & Egan, 2005 ; Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009 ; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2008 ).

Two conceptually different approaches dominate the current study of EI: the trait and the ability approach (Petrides & Furnham, 2001 ). The trait approach conceives EI as dispositional tendencies, such as personality traits or self-efficacy beliefs (see Petrides, Sanchez-Ruiz, Siegling, Saklofske, & Mavroveli, Chap. 3 , this volume). This approach is often indicated in the literature as also including “mixed” models, although such models are conceptually distinct from conceptions of EI as personality because they consider EI as a mixture of traits, competences, and abilities (e.g., Bar-On, 2006 ; Goleman, 1998 ). Both the trait approach and the “mixed” models share the same measurement methods of EI, namely, self-report questionnaires. In contrast, the ability approach conceptualizes EI as a cognitive ability based on the processing of emotion information and assesses it with performance tests. The current chapter deals with the latter approach, where we first outline Mayer and Salovey’s ( 1997 ) foundational four-branch ability EI model, then describe commonly used and new measures of EI abilities, critically review evidence of EI’s predictive validity, and finally discuss outstanding challenges, suggesting new directions for the measurement and conceptualization of EI as an ability.

Although not the focus of the present contribution, it should be noted that some attempts to integrate both ability and trait EI perspectives exist in the literature, including the multi-level developmental investment model (Zeidner, Matthews, Roberts, & MacCann, 2003 ) and the tripartite model (Mikolajczak, 2009 ). For example, the tripartite model suggests three levels of EI: (1) knowledge about emotions, (2) ability to apply this knowledge in real-world situations, and (3) traits reflecting the propensity to behave in a certain way in emotional situations (typical behavior). Research and applications on this tripartite model are currently underway (e.g., Laborde, Mosley, Ackermann, Mrsic, & Dosseville, Chap. 11 , this volume; Maillefer, Udayar, Fiori, submitted ). More theory and research is needed to elucidate how the different EI approaches are related with each other. What all of these theoretical frameworks share in common is their conceptualization of EI as a distinct construct from traditional IQ and personality, which facilitates the potential for prediction of, and influence on, various real-life outcomes (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000 ; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008 ; Petrides, Perez-Gonzalez, & Furnham, 2007 ).

The Four-Branch Ability EI Model

The main characteristic of the ability approach is that EI is conceived as a form of intelligence. It specifies that cognitive processing is implicated in emotions, is related to general intelligence, and therefore ought to be assessed through performance measures that require respondents to perform discrete tasks and solve specific problems (Freeland, Terry, & Rodgers, 2008 ; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016 ; Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ). The mainstream model of EI as an ability is the four-branch model introduced by Mayer and Salovey ( 1997 ), which has received wide acknowledgment and use and has been foundational in the development of other EI models and measures. The four-branch model identifies EI as being comprised of a number of mental abilities that allow for the appraisal, expression, and regulation of emotion, as well the integration of these emotion processes with cognitive processes used to promote growth and achievement (Salovey & Grewal, 2005 ; Salovey & Mayer, 1990 ). The model is comprised of four hierarchically linked ability areas, or branches: perceiving emotions, facilitating thought using emotions, understanding emotions, and managing emotions (see Fig. 2.1 ).

The Mayer and Salovey ( 1997 ) four-branch model of emotional intelligence (EI) abilities

Perceiving emotions (Branch 1) refers to the ability to identify emotions accurately through the attendance, detection, and deciphering of emotional signals in faces, pictures, or voices (Papadogiannis, Logan, & Sitarenios, 2009 ). This ability involves identifying emotions in one’s own physical and psychological states, as well as an awareness of, and sensitivity to, the emotions of others (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999 ; Papadogiannis et al., 2009 ).

Facilitating thought using emotions (Branch 2) involves the integration of emotions to facilitate thought. This occurs through the analysis of, attendance to, or reflection on emotional information, which in turn assists higher-order cognitive activities such as reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, and consideration of the perspectives of others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 ; Papadogiannis et al., 2009 ). Individuals with a strong ability to use emotions would be able to select and prioritize cognitive activities that are most conducive to their current mood state, as well as change their mood to fit the given situation in a way that would foster better contextual adaptation.

Understanding emotions (Branch 3) comprises the ability to comprehend the connections between different emotions and how emotions change over time and situations (Rivers, Brackett, Salovey, & Mayer, 2007 ). This would involve knowledge of emotion language and its utilization to identify slight variations in emotion and describe different combinations of feelings. Individuals stronger in this domain understand the complex and transitional relationships between emotions and can recognize emotional cues learned from previous experiences, thus allowing them to predict expressions in others in the future (Papadogiannis et al., 2009 ). For example, an understanding that a colleague is getting frustrated, through subtle changes in tone or expression, can improve individuals’ communication in relationships and their personal and professional performances.

Finally, managing emotions (Branch 4) refers to the ability to regulate one’s own and others’ emotions successfully. Such ability would entail the capacity to maintain, shift, and cater emotional responses, either positive or negative, to a given situation (Rivers et al., 2007 ). This could be reflected in the maintenance of a positive mood in a challenging situation or curbing elation at a time in which an important decision must be made. Recovering quickly from being angry or generating motivation or encouragement for a friend prior to an important activity are illustrations of high-level emotion management (Papadogiannis et al., 2009 ).

The four EI branches are theorized to be hierarchically organized, with the last two abilities (understanding and management), which involve higher-order (strategic) cognitive processes, building on the first two abilities (perception and facilitation), which involve rapid (experiential) processing of emotion information (Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ; Salovey & Grewal, 2005 ). It should be noted that the proposed hierarchical structure of the model, as well as its four distinctive branches, have been contradicted. First, developmental evidence suggests that abilities in different EI domains (e.g., perceiving, managing) are acquired in parallel rather than sequentially, through a complex learning process involving a wide range of biological and environmental influences (Zeidner et al., 2003 ). Though this conceptualization supports the notion that lower-level competencies aid in the development of more sophisticated skills, it also identifies ways in which the four EI branches are sometimes developed simultaneously, with lower-level abilities of perceiving, facilitating, understanding, and managing emotions at the same time leading to their later improvement.

The four-branch model has also been challenged through factor analysis in several cases, which did not support a hierarchical model with one underlying global EI factor (Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ; Rossen, Kranzler, & Algina, 2008 ). Moreover, facilitating thought using emotions (Branch 2) did not emerge as a separate factor and was found to be empirically redundant with the other branches (Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010 ; Fiori et al., 2014 ; Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ; Gignac, 2005 ; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005 ), leading scholars to adopt a revised three-branch model of ability EI, comprised of emotion recognition, emotion understanding, and emotion management (Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; MacCann, Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014 ). Nevertheless, the four branches remain the foundation for current ability EI models, and their description aids in the theoretical understanding of the content domains covered by ability-based perspectives on EI (Mayer et al., 2016 ).

Measurement of EI Abilities

How ability EI is measured is critically important to how the results are interpreted. The fact that ability EI is measured by maximum-performance tests, as is appropriate for a form of intelligence, instead of self-report questionnaires, as is the case for trait EI (see Petrides et al., Chap. 3 , this volume) can, in itself, lead to different results (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006 ). This is analogous to asking people to provide evidence of their intelligence by utilizing a performance IQ measure versus asking them how high they think their IQ is. Although most individuals have insight with regard to their own abilities, there are those who do not. There are, of course, others who over- or underestimate their intelligence unintentionally or for social desirability purposes, resulting in different scores depending on the format of measurement. Thus, it would be challenging to determine whether the results are attributable to the construct itself or to the assessment methods that are being used (MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).

Though this example is referring to empirically acknowledged problems with self-report measures in general, reflected in vulnerability to faking, social desirability, and ecological validity (Grubb & McDaniel, 2007 ; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2007 ), problems with performance measures of EI that may alter the response outcome also exist. For instance, typical ability EI items require individuals to demonstrate their “ability” to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions by responding to a variety of hypothetical scenarios and visual stimuli, thus deeming the incorrect/correct response format as a method of scoring. Although this may correlate with real-life outcomes, it may not be an accurate representation of EI in real-life social interactions (Vesely, 2011 ; Vesely-Maillefer, 2015 ).

With these considerations in mind , we provide below a short description of the most commonly used as well as some newly developed tests to measure EI abilities.

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002 ; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003 ) is the corresponding measure of the dominant-to-date four-branch theoretical model of ability EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ). This is a performance-based measure that provides a comprehensive coverage of ability EI by assessing how people perform emotion tasks and solve emotional problems. It assesses the four EI branches with 141 items distributed across eight tasks (two tasks per branch). Perceiving emotions (Branch 1) is assessed with two emotion perception tasks: (1) the faces task involves identifying emotions conveyed through expressions in photographs of people’s faces; and (2) the pictures task involves identifying emotions in pictures of landscapes and abstract art. For both tasks, respondents are asked to rate on a 5-point scale the degree to which five different emotions are expressed in each stimulus. Facilitating thought (Branch 2) is assessed with two tasks: (1) the facilitation task involves evaluating how different moods may facilitate specific cognitive activities; and (2) the sensations task involves comparing emotions to other sensations, such as color, light, and temperature. For both tasks, respondents are asked to indicate which of the different emotions best match the target activity/sensation. Understanding emotions (Branch 3) is assessed with two multiple-choice tests: (1) the changes test involves questions about how emotions connect to certain situations and how emotions may change and develop over time; and (2) the blends test involves questions about how different emotions combine and interact to form new emotions. For both tests, respondents are asked to choose the most appropriate of five possible response options. Managing emotions (Branch 4) is assessed with two situational judgment tests (SJTs) using a series of vignettes depicting real-life social and emotional situations: (1) the emotion management test involves judgments about strategies for regulating the protagonist’s own emotions in each situation; and (2) the emotional relations test involves judgments about strategies for managing emotions within the protagonist’s social relationships. For both tests, respondents are asked to rate the level of effectiveness of several different strategies, ranging from 1 = very ineffective to 5 = very effective.

The MSCEIT assessment yields a total EI score, four-branch scores, and two area scores for experiential EI (Branches 1 and 2 combined) and strategic EI (Branches 3 and 4 combined). Consistent with the view of EI as a cognitive ability , the scoring of item responses follows the correct/incorrect format of an ability-based IQ test while also requiring the individual to be attuned to social norms (Salovey & Grewal, 2005 ). The correctness of the MSCEIT responses can be determined in one of two ways: (a) based on congruence with the answers of emotion experts (expert scoring) or (b) based on the proportion of the sample that endorsed the same answer (general consensus scoring) (Mayer et al., 2003 ; Papadogiannis et al., 2009 ; Salovey & Grewal, 2005 ). Mayer et al. ( 2003 ) reported high agreement between the two scoring methods in terms of correct answers ( r  = 0.91) and test scores ( r  = 0.98). The test internal consistency reliability (split half) is r  = 0.91–0.93 for the total EI and r  = 0.76–0.91 for the four-branch scores, with expert scoring producing slightly higher reliability estimates (Mayer et al., 2003 ).

The MSCEIT has been the only test available to measure EI as an ability for a long time, and much of the existing validity evidence on ability EI, which we review in the next section, is based on the MSCEIT, introducing the risk of mono-method bias in research. Although there are other standardized tests that can be used to measure specific EI abilities (described below), the MSCEIT remains the only omnibus test to measure all four branches of the ability EI model in one standardized assessment. Another attractive feature of the MSCEIT is the availability of a matching youth research version (MSCEIT-YRV; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2005 ; Rivers et al., 2012 ), which assesses the same four EI branches using age-appropriate items for children and adolescents (ages 10–17). However, a major barrier to research uses of the MSCEIT and its derivatives is that these tests are sold commercially and scored off-site by the publisher, Multi-Health Systems Inc. Furthermore, the MSCEIT has several well-documented psychometric limitations (Fiori et al., 2014 ; Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ; Maul, 2012 ; Rossen et al., 2008 ), which have prompted researchers to develop alternative instruments, to generalize findings across assessments , and to create non-commercial alternatives for research.

Tests of Emotion Understanding and Management

Recently, there has been an important advancement in ability EI measurement: the introduction of a second generation of ability EI tests, notably the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM) introduced by MacCann and Roberts ( 2008 ). Both the STEU and the STEM follow the SJT format similar to that used for the managing emotions branch of the MSCEIT, where respondents are presented with short vignettes depicting real-life social and emotional situations (42 on the STEU and 44 on the STEM) and asked to select, among a list of five, which emotion best describes how the protagonist would feel in each situation (STEU) or which course of action would be most effective in managing emotions in each situation (STEM). Correct answers on the STEU are scored according to Roseman’s (2001) appraisal theory (theory-based scoring), and correct answers on the STEM are scored according to the judgments provided by emotion experts (expert scoring). The reliability of the two tests is reported to be between alpha = 0.71 and 0.72 for STEU and between alpha = 0.68 and 0.85 for STEM (Libbrecht & Lievens, 2012 ; MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ). Brief forms of both tests (18–19 items) have also been developed for research contexts where comprehensive assessment of EI is not required (Allen et al., 2015 ). There is also an 11-item youth version of the STEM (STEM-Y; MacCann, Wang, Matthews, & Roberts, 2010 ) adapted for young adolescents. The STEU and STEM items are available free of charge in the American Psychological Association PsycTESTS database (see also https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012746.supp ). These tests look promising, although they have been introduced recently and more research is needed to ascertain their construct and predictive validity (but see Burrus et al., 2012 ; Libbrecht & Lievens, 2012 ; Libbrecht, Lievens, Carette, & Côté, 2014 ).

The text-based format of the SJT items on the STEU, STEM, and MSCEIT raises concerns about their ecological validity, as real-life social encounters require judgments of verbal as well as nonverbal cues . To address this concern, MacCann, Lievens, Libbrecht, and Roberts ( 2016 ) recently developed a multimedia test of emotion management, the 28-item multimedia emotion management assessment (MEMA) , by transforming the original text-based scenarios and response options from the STEM into a video format. MacCann et al.’s ( 2016 ) comparisons of the MEMA with the text-based items from the MSCEIT managing emotions branch produced equivalent evidence of construct and predictive validity for the two tests.

Tests of Emotion Perception

There are several long-existing standardized measures of perceptual accuracy in recognizing emotions, many of which were introduced even before the construct of EI. Therefore, these were not presented as EI tests but do capture the perceiving emotions branch of EI and could be considered as viable alternatives to the MSCEIT. Among the most frequently used of these tests are the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA ; Nowicki & Duke 1994 ), the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS ; Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979 ), and the Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART ; Matsumoto et al., 2000 ). Like the MSCEIT faces task, these tests involve viewing a series of stimuli portraying another person’s emotion, and the respondent’s task is to correctly identify the emotion expressed. However, unlike the rating-scale format of the MSCEIT faces items, these other tests use a multiple-choice format, where respondents must choose one emotion, from a list of several, that best matches the stimulus. This difference in response format could be one possible reason why performance on the MSCEIT perceiving branch shows weak convergence with these other emotion recognition tests (MacCann et al., 2016 ).

Different emotion recognition tests use different types of stimuli and modalities (e.g., photos of faces, audio recordings) and cover different numbers of target emotions. For example, the DANVA uses 24 photos of male and female facial expressions and 24 audio recordings of male and female vocal expressions of the same neutral sentence (“I am going out of the room now but I’ll be back later”), representing 1 of 4 emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, and fear) in 2 intensities, either weak or strong. The PONS is presented as a test assessing interpersonal sensitivity, or the accuracy in judging other people’s nonverbal cues and affective states. It includes 20 short audio and video segments of a woman for a total length of 47 minutes. The task is to identify which of two emotion situations best describes the woman’s expression. The JACBART uses 56 pictures of Japanese and Caucasian faces expressing 1 of 5 emotions (fear, happiness, sadness, anger, surprise, contempt, and disgust). The interesting feature of this test, in comparison to others, is that it employs a very brief presentation time (200 ms). Each expressive picture is preceded and followed by the neutral version of the same person expressing the emotion in the target picture, so as to reduce post effects of the pictures and get a more spontaneous evaluation of the perceived emotion.

Both the MSCEIT perceiving branch and the earlier emotion recognition tests have been critiqued for their focus on a single modality (i.e., still photos vs. audio recordings), as well as for their restricted range of target emotions (i.e., few basic emotions, only one of them positive), which limits their ecological validity and precludes assessing the ability to differentiate between more nuanced emotion states (Schlegel, Fontaine, & Scherer, 2017 ; Schlegel, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2014 ). The new wave of emotion recognition tests developed at the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences – the Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test (MERT ; Bänziger, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2009 ) and the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test (GERT ; Schlegel et al., 2014 ) – aim to rectify both problems by employing more ecologically valid stimuli, involving dynamic multimodal (vocal plus visual) portrayals of 10 (MERT) to 14 (GERT) different emotions, half of them positive. For example, the GERT consists of 83 videos (1–3 s long) of professional male and female actors expressing 14 emotions (joy, amusement, pride, pleasure, relief, interest, anger, fear, despair, irritation, anxiety, sadness, disgust, and surprise) through facial expressions, nonverbal gestural/postural behavior, and audible pseudo-linguistic phrases that resemble the tone of voice of the spoken language. A short version (GERT-S) is also available with 42 items only (Schlegel & Scherer, 2015 ). The reliability is 0.74 for the long version. The emerging evidence for the construct and predictive validity of the GERT looks promising (Schlegel et al., 2017 ).

Predictive Validity of Ability EI

Among the most researched and debated questions in the ability EI literature is whether ability EI can predict meaningful variance in life outcomes – does ability EI matter? (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009 ; Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2011 ; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008 ). Several studies have shown that ability EI predicts health-related outcomes, including higher satisfaction with life, lower depression, and fewer health issues (Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera, 2016 ; Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010 ). Furthermore, high EI individuals tend to be perceived by others more positively because of their greater social-emotional skills (Fiori, 2015 ; Lopes, Cote, & Salovey, 2006 ) and thus enjoy better interpersonal functioning in the family (Brackett et al., 2005 ), at work (Côte & Miners, 2006 ), and in social relationships (Brackett et al., 2006 ). Ability EI has also been positively implicated in workplace performance and leadership (Côte, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010 ; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011 ).

Evidence for ability EI predicting academic success is mixed in post-secondary settings (see Parker, Taylor, Keefer, & Summerfeldt, Chap. 16 , this volume) but more consistent for secondary school outcomes, where ability EI measures have been associated with fewer teacher-rated behavioral and learning problems and higher academic grades (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014 ; Rivers et al., 2012 ). There is also compelling evidence from over 200 controlled studies of school-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs, showing that well-executed SEL programs reduce instances of behavioral and emotional problems and produce improvements in students’ academic engagement and grades (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011 ; see also Elias, Nayman, & Duffell, Chap. 12 , this volume). Hoffmann, Ivcevic, and Brackett (Chap. 7 , this volume) describe one notable example of such evidence-based SEL program, the RULER approach , which is directly grounded in the four-branch ability EI model.

Although these results are certainly encouraging regarding the importance of ability EI as a predictor of personal, social, and performance outcomes, there are several important caveats to this conclusion. First, ability EI measures may capture predominantly the knowledge aspects of EI, which can be distinct from the routine application of that knowledge in real-life social-emotional interaction. This disconnect between emotional knowledge and application of knowledge is also supported by the tripartite model of EI mentioned above (Mikolajczak, 2009 ), which separates the ability-based knowledge from trait-based applications within its theory. For example, it posits the possibility that a person with strong cognitive knowledge and verbal ability can describe which emotional expression would be useful in a given situation, but may not be able to select or even display the corresponding emotion in a particular social encounter. Indeed, many other factors, apart from intelligence, contribute to people’s actual behavior, including personality, motives, beliefs, and situational influences.

This leads to the second caveat: whether ability EI is distinct enough from other established constructs, such as personality and IQ, to predict incremental variance in outcomes beyond these well-known variables. Although the overlap of EI measures with known constructs is more evident for trait EI measures (Joseph, Jin, Newman, & O’Boyle, 2015 ), some studies have shown that a substantial amount of variance in ability EI tests, in particular the MSCEIT, was predicted by intelligence, but also by personality traits, especially the trait of agreeableness (Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ). These results suggest that ability EI, as measured with the MSCEIT, pertains not only to the sphere of emotional abilities, as it was originally envisioned, but depends also on one’s personality characteristics, which conflicts with the idea that ability EI should be conceived (and measured) solely as a form of intelligence. Given these overlaps, the contribution of ability EI lowers once personality and IQ are accounted for. For example, the meta-analysis by Joseph and Newman ( 2010 ) showed that ability EI provided significant but rather limited incremental validity in predicting job performance over personality and IQ.

Of course, one may argue that even a small portion of incremental variance that is not accounted for by known constructs is worth the effort. Further and indeed, a more constructive reflection on the role of ability EI in predicting various outcomes refers to understanding why its contributions may have been limited so far. The outcomes predicted by ability EI should be emotion-specific, given that it is deemed to be a form of intelligence that pertains to the emotional sphere. There is no strong rationale for expecting ability EI to predict generic work outcomes such as job performance; for this type of outcome, we already know that IQ and personality account for the most variance. Instead, work-related outcomes that involve the regulation of emotions, such as emotional labor, would be more appropriate. This idea is corroborated by the meta-analytic evidence showing stronger incremental predictive validity of ability EI for jobs high in emotional labor, such as customer service positions (Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; Newman, Joseph, & MacCann, 2010 ).

Another reason why the incremental validity of ability EI measures appears to be rather small may be related to the limits of current EI measures. For example, the MSCEIT has shown to be best suited to discriminate individuals at the low end of the EI ability distribution (Fiori et al., 2014 ). For the other individuals (medium and high in EI), variation in the MSCEIT scores does not seem to reflect true variation in EI ability. Given that most of the evidence on ability EI to date is based on the MSCEIT, it is likely that some incremental validity of ability EI was “lost” due to the limitations of the test utilized to measure it.

Another caveat concerns making inferences about predictive validity of ability EI from the outcomes of EI and SEL programs. Here, the issue is in part complicated by the fact that terms such as “ability” and “competence” are often used interchangeably, but in fact reflect different characteristics, the latter being a trait-like solidification of the former through practice and experience. Many EI programs are in fact meant to build emotional competence, going beyond the mere acquisition of emotional knowledge and working toward the application of that knowledge across different contexts. As such, other processes and factors, apart from direct teaching and learning of EI abilities, likely contribute to positive program outcomes. For example, the most effective school-based SEL programs are those that also modify school and relational environments in ways that would model, reinforce, and provide opportunities for students to practice the newly acquired EI skills in everyday situations (see also Elias et al., Chap. 12 , this volume; Humphrey, Chap. 8 , this volume). Thus, it would be inappropriate to attribute the outcomes of such programs solely to increases in students’ EI abilities, without acknowledging the supportive social and contextual influences.

It is also important to better understand which processes mediate the role of ability EI in improving individuals’ emotional functioning. Social cognitive theories of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997 ) and self-concept (Marsh & Craven, 2006 ) can inform which types of processes might be involved in linking ability to behavioral change. Specifically, successful acquisition and repeated practice of EI skills can build individuals’ sense of confidence in using those skills (i.e., higher perceived EI self-efficacy), which would increase the likelihood of drawing upon those skills in future situations, in turn providing further opportunities to hone the skills and reinforce the sense of self-competence (Keefer, 2015 ). Research on self-efficacy beliefs in one’s ability to regulate emotions supports this view (Alessandri, Vecchione, & Caprara, 2015 ).

Mayer et al. ( 2016 ) cogently summarized the ambivalent nature of predictive validity evidence for ability EI: “the prediction from intelligence to individual instances of “smart” behavior is fraught with complications and weak in any single instance. At the same time, more emotionally intelligent people have outcomes that differ in important ways from those who are less emotionally intelligent” (p. 291). We concur with this conclusion but would treat it as tentative, given that there are several unresolved issues with the way ability EI has been measured and conceptualized, as discussed below. This opens the possibility that EI’s predictive validity would improve once these measurement and theoretical issues have been clarified.

Measurement and Conceptual Issues

Scoring of correct responses.

One of the greatest challenges of operationalizing EI as an ability has been (and still is) how to score a correct answer on an ability EI test. Indeed, in contrast to personality questionnaires in which answers depend on the unrestricted choice of the respondent and any answer is a valid one, ability test responses are deemed correct or wrong based on an external criterion of correctness. Among the most problematic aspects is the identification of such criterion; it is difficult to find the one best way across individuals who may differ with respect to how they feel and manage emotions effectively (Fiori et al., 2014 ). After all, the very essence of being intelligent implies finding the best solution to contextual adaptation given the resources one possesses. For example, one may be aware that, in principle, a good way to deal with a relational conflict is to talk with the other person to clarify the sources of conflict and/or misunderstanding. However, if one knows they and/or their partner are not good at managing interpersonal relationships , one may choose to avoid confrontation as a more effective strategy in the moment, given the personal characteristics of the individuals involved (Fiori et al., 2014 ).

This example evokes another issue that has not been addressed in the literature on ability EI, namely, the potential difference between what response would be more “intelligent” personally versus socially. One may argue that the solution should fill both needs; however, these may be in contradiction. For instance, suppression of one’s own feelings may help to avoid an interpersonal conflict, an action seen as socially adaptive ; however, this same strategy maybe personally unhealthy if the person does not manage their suppressed emotion in other constructive ways. In this case, a more socially unacceptable response that releases emotion may have been more “emotionally intelligent” as it relates to the self but less so as it relates to others. The problematic part is that current measurement tools do not take these nuances into account. This relates also to the lack of distinction in the literature on emotion skills related to the “self” versus “others,” a criticism discussed below.

In addition, “correctness” of an emotional reaction may depend on the time frame within which one intends to pursue a goal that has emotional implications. For example, if a person is focused on the short-term goal of getting one’s way after being treated unfairly by his or her supervisor, the most “effective” way to manage the situation would be to defend one’s position in front of the supervisor regardless of possible ramifications . In contrast, if one is aiming at a more long-term goal, such as to preserve a good relationship with the boss, the person may accept what is perceived as an unfair treatment and try to “let it go” (Fiori et al., 2014 ).

Scholars who have introduced ability EI measures have attempted to address these difficulties by implementing one of these three strategies to find a correct answer: (a) judge whether an answer is correct according to the extent to which it overlaps with the answer provided by the majority of respondents, also called the consensus scoring ; (b) identify correctness according to the choice provided by a pool of emotion experts, or expert scoring ; and (c) identify whether an answer is correct according to the principles of emotion theories, or theoretical scoring . The consensus scoring was introduced by Mayer et al. ( 1999 ) as a scoring option for the MSCEIT, based on the idea that emotions are genetically determined and shared by all human beings and that, for this reason, the answer chosen by the majority of people can be taken as the correct way to experience emotions. Unfortunately, this logic appears profoundly faulty once one realizes that answers chosen by the majority of people are by definition easy to endorse and that tests based on this logic are not challenging enough for individuals with average or above average EI (for a thorough explanation of this measurement issue, see Fiori et al., 2014 ).

Furthermore, what the majority of people say about emotions may simply reflect lay theories, which, although shared by most, can still be incorrect. The ability to spot a fake smile is a good example of this effect. This task is challenging for all but a restricted group of emotion experts (Maul, 2012 ). In this case, the “correct” answer should be modeled on the few that can spot fake emotions, not on the modal answer in the general population. In fact, the emotionally intelligent “prototype” should be among the very few that can spot fake emotions, rather than among the vast majority of people that get them wrong. Thus, from a conceptual point of view, it would make better sense to score test takers’ responses with respect to a group of emotion experts (high EI individuals ), as long as items reflect differences between typical individuals and those that are higher than the norm (Fiori et al., 2014 ). Items for which the opinion of experts is very close to that of common people should be discarded in testing EI abilities, because they would not be difficult enough to discriminate among individuals with different levels of EI.

Finally, scoring grounded in emotion theories offers a valuable alternative, as it allows setting item difficulties and response options in correspondence with theory-informed emotion processes (Schlegel, 2016 ). Some of the recently developed ability EI tests have utilized this approach. For example, response options on the STEM-B (Allen et al., 2015 ) and MEMA (MacCann et al., 2016 ) map onto the various emotion regulation strategies outlined in Gross’ ( 1998 ) process model of emotion regulation. Based on this theory, certain strategies (e.g., positive reappraisal, direct modification) would be more adaptive than others (e.g., emotion suppression, avoidance), and the correct responses on the ability EI items can be set accordingly. However, this too may appear to be a “subjective” criterion because of the differences among theories regarding what is deemed the adaptive way to experience, label, and regulate emotions. For example, suppression is regarded as a deleterious strategy to manage emotions because of its negative long-term effects (Gross, 1998 ). However, evidence suggests (Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Westphal, & Coifman, 2004 ; Matsumoto et al., 2008 ) that the damaging effect of suppressing emotions may depend on how this strategy fits with the social and cultural contexts, as also discussed earlier in the example of the relational conflict. Moreover, there are systematic differences across cultures in how emotions are to be expressed, understood, and regulated “intelligently” (see Huynh, Oakes, & Grossman, Chap. 5 , this volume), which poses additional challenges for developing an unbiased scoring system for ability EI tests.

Self- vs. Other-Related EI Abilities

Another issue that has not received much attention in the literature and that might explain why ability EI contributions in predicting outcomes are limited refers to the fact that ability EI theorization, in particular Mayer and Salovey’s ( 1997 ) four-branch model, blurs the distinction between emotional abilities that refer to the self with those that refer to others (e.g., perceiving emotions in oneself vs. in others, understanding what one is feeling vs. someone else is feeling, etc.), as if using the abilities for perceiving/understanding/managing emotions in oneself would automatically entail using these abilities successfully with others. However, being good at understanding one’s own emotional reactions does not automatically entail being able to understand others’ emotional reactions (and vice versa). There is some intuitive evidence: some professionals (e.g., emotion experts, psychologists) may be very good at understanding their patients’ emotional reactions, but not as good at understanding their own emotional reactions. Further, scientific evidence also exists : knowledge about the self seems to be processed in a distinctive way compared to social knowledge. For example, brain imaging studies show that taking the self-perspective or the perspective of someone else activates partially different neural mechanisms and brain regions (David et al., 2006 ; Vogeley et al., 2001 ).

The most important implication of considering the two sets of abilities (e.g., employed for oneself or with respect to others) as distinct rather than equivalent is that each of them might predict different outcomes. Recent evidence comes from a program evaluation study of an EI training program for teachers investigating the mechanisms by which EI skills are learned (described in Vesely-Maillefer & Saklofske, Chap. 14 , this volume). Preliminary results showed differential perceived outcomes in self- versus other-related EI skills , dependent on which ones were taught and practiced. Specifically, practice of self-relevant EI skills was the primary focus of the program, and these were perceived to have increased by the program’s end more than the other-related EI skills (Vesely-Maillefer, 2015 ).

It is worth noting that some recently introduced measures of EI make the explicit distinction between the self- and other-oriented domains of abilities. For instance, the Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC; Brasseur, Grégoire, Bourdu, & Mikolajczak, 2013 ) is a trait EI questionnaire that distinguishes between intrapersonal and interpersonal EI competences, and the Genos emotional intelligence test (Gignac, 2008 ) measures awareness and management of emotions in both self and others separately. Additionally, a new ability EI test currently under development at the University of Geneva, the Geneva Emotional Competence Test (Mortillaro & Schlegel), distinguishes between emotion regulation in oneself (emotion regulation) and in others (emotion management). The adoption of these more precise operationalizations of self- and other-related EI abilities would allow collecting “cleaner” validity data for the ability EI construct.

Conscious vs. Automatic Processes

Among the most compelling theoretical challenges EI researchers need to address is to understand the extent to which ability EI depends on conscious versus automatic processes (Fiori, 2009 ). Most ability EI research, if not all, has dealt with the investigation of how individuals thoughtfully reason about their own and others’ emotional experience by consciously feeling, understanding, regulating, and recognizing emotions. However, a large portion of emotional behavior is, in fact, not conscious (Feldman Barrett, Niedenthal, & Winkielman, 2005 ). For example, individuals may process emotional signals, such as nonverbal emotional behavior, without having any hint of conscious perception (Tamietto & de Gelder, 2010 ). Applied to the domain of ability EI, this implies that individuals may be able to use emotions intelligently even without being aware of how they do it and/or without even realizing that they are doing it. Research on cognitive biases in emotional disorders supports this idea: systematic errors in the automatic processing of emotion information have been causally implicated in vulnerability for mood and anxiety disorders (Mathews & MacLeod, 2005 ).

EI scholars need to acknowledge the automaticity component of ability EI, first, because it is theoretically relevant and second, because it might explain additional variance in emotionally intelligent behavior due to subconscious or unconscious processes that have been ignored to date. Some contributions have provided conceptual models (Fiori, 2009 ) and raised theoretical issues (Ybarra, Kross, & Sanchez-Burks, 2014 ) that would help to move forward in this direction. Evidence-based research is the next step and would require scholars to employ experimental paradigms in which the level of emotional consciousness is manipulated in order to observe its effects on emotionally intelligent behavior.

New Developments and Future Directions

The domain of research on ability EI is in its early developmental stage, and there is still much to explore, both on the theoretical and the measurement side. The seminal four-branch model introduced by Mayer and Salovey ( 1997 ) needs to be further developed and refined on the basis of the most recent research findings. As mentioned above, the model of ability EI as composed of four hierarchically related branches underlying a latent global EI factor does not seem to be supported, at least in its original formulation (e.g., Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ; Rossen et al., 2008 ). On the measurement side, it seems as if progress has been made in terms of introducing new tests to measure specific EI abilities. A further step is to clarify what exactly scores on these tests are measuring and what mechanisms account for test performance. For instance, in the past the possibility was raised that individuals high in EI might be overly sensitive to emotions felt by themselves and by others in a way that could in certain circumstances compromise their health (e.g., Ciarrochi et al., 2002 ) and social effectiveness (Antonakis et al., 2009 ). Recent empirical evidence (Fiori & Ortony, 2016 ) showed that indeed high EI individuals were more strongly affected by incidental anger in forming impressions of an ambiguous target (study 1) and that they amplified the importance of emotion information, which affected their social perception (study 2). This characteristic associated with being high in EI was called “hypersensitivity ,” and it was deemed to have either positive or negative effects depending on the context (Fiori & Ortony, 2016 ).

Further investigation should also clarify which aspects of ability EI may be missing in current measurement and theorization. Ability EI tests, including the second generation, show moderate correlations with measures of intelligence, a finding that supports the conceptualization of EI as a form of intelligence. Interestingly, the component of intelligence most strongly correlated with measures of EI abilities – particularly the strategic branches of understanding and managing – is crystallized intelligence , or g c (Farrelly & Austin, 2007 ; MacCann, 2010 ; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008 ; Roberts et al., 2006 , 2008 ), which suggests that current tests represent especially the acquired knowledge about emotions people possess. Indeed, items of the STEU and the STEM (as well as most items of the MSCEIT) require respondents to identify the best strategy to cope with emotionally involving situations described in a short vignette or to understand the emotion one would feel in a hypothetical scenario. Individuals may correctly answer such items relying on what they know about emotions, leaving open the question of whether they would be able to apply that knowledge in novel situations. For instance, individuals with Asperger’s syndrome undertaking ability EI training improved their EI scores while still lacking fundamental interpersonal skills (Montgomery, McCrimmon, Schwean, & Saklosfke, 2010 ). All in all, it appears that the STEU and the STEM measure performance in hypothetical situations, rather than actual performance, the former being more dependent on the declarative knowledge individuals possess about emotions (Fiori, 2009 ; Fiori & Antonakis, 2012 ). Tests employed to measure emotion recognition ability (e.g., JACBART) are not based on hypothetical scenarios but on pictures or videos of individuals showing emotions. Although these tests require the use of perceptual skills – differently from the tests of strategic EI abilities – they still show a significant association with g c  although to a lesser extent (Roberts et al., 2006 ). Indeed, individuals may rely on the knowledge they possess of how emotions are expressed to correctly identify emotions.

At the same time, ability EI measures show little associations with emotion-processing tasks that are more strongly related to the fluid component of intelligence, or g f , such as inspection time and selective attention to emotional stimuli (Farrelly & Austin, 2007 ; Fiori & Antonakis, 2012 ). For example, Fiori and Antonakis ( 2012 ) examined predictors of performance on a selective attention task requiring participants to ignore distracting emotion information. Results showed that fluid intelligence and the personality trait of openness predicted faster correct answers on the attentional task. Interestingly, none of the ability EI test facets (as measured with the MSCEIT) predicted performance, suggesting that the MSCEIT taps into something different from emotion information processing . Austin ( 2010 ) examined the associations of the STEU and the STEM with inspection time on an emotion perception task and found no relations for the STEM. The STEU scores predicted inspection time only at intermediate and long stimulus durations, but not at very brief exposures requiring rapid processing of the stimuli, suggesting that the STEU captures conscious rather than preconscious emotion information processing. MacCann, Pearce, and Roberts ( 2011 ) looked at the associations of the strategic EI abilities (measured with the STEU and STEM), fluid and crystallized intelligence , and emotion recognition tasks based on processing of visual and auditory emotional stimuli. Their results revealed an ability EI factor distinct from g, but with some subcomponents more strongly related to g f (particularly those involving visual perception of emotional stimuli ) and others to g c (those concerning strategic abilities and the auditory perception of emotional stimuli). This study suggested the presence of potentially distinct subcomponents of fluid and crystallized ability EI, although the authors did not investigate this possibility (MacCann et al., 2011 ).

The association between current ability EI tests and emotion-information processing tasks has not been systematically addressed in the literature and deserves further investigation. In fact, it is expected that high-EI individuals would have wider emotion knowledge but also stronger emotion-processing abilities in dealing with emotional stimuli, both accounting for how individuals perform in emotionally charged situations and each predicting distinct portions of emotionally intelligent behavior. The identification of a component of ability EI that is not (fully) captured by current tests is important because it would reveal an aspect of EI that is not measured (and therefore omitted) in current research. Yet, such a component may be relevant to predicting emotionally intelligent behavior. For example, Ortony, Revelle, and Zinbarg ( 2008 ), in making the case as to why ability EI would need a fluid , experiential component, cite the case of intelligent machines, which, on the basis of algorithmic processes, would be able to perform well on the ability EI test even without being able to experience any emotion. This example highlights the importance of measuring factors associated with emotional experience and the processing of emotion information, beyond emotion knowledge, which would be better captured by bottom-up processes generated by the encoding and treatment of emotion information.

In sum, research suggests that within a broad conceptualization of ability EI as a unique construct, there might be two distinct components : one related to top-down, higher-order reasoning about emotions, depending more strongly on acquired and culture-bound knowledge about emotions, hereafter named the crystallized component of ability EI (EI c , or emotion knowledge ), and another based on bottom-up perceptual responses to emotion information, requiring fast processing and hereafter named the fluid component of ability EI (EI f , or emotion information processing ) (see Fig. 2.2 ).

Conceptualization of ability EI as composed of a fluid (EI f ) and crystallized (EI c ) component, both affected by conscious and automatic emotion processes

An additional way to look at the relationship between the two components underlying ability EI is by considering what might account for such differences, namely, the type of processing (conscious vs. automatic) necessary for ability EI tests. The role automatic processes might play in EI has been approached only recently (Fiori, 2009 ), and it is progressively gaining recognition and interest especially in organizational research (Walter, Cole, & Humphrey, 2011 ; Ybarra et al., 2014 ). With respect to the relationship between a crystallized and a fluid component of ability EI, it is plausible that answers to current ability EI tests strongly rely on conscious reasoning about emotions, whereas performance on emotional tasks, such as inspection time and fast categorization of emotional stimuli, for example, relies more on automatic processing. This may be the case as individuals in the latter tasks provide answers without being fully aware of what drives their responses. Thus, current ability EI tests and emotion information processing tasks may be tapping into different ways of processing emotion information (conscious vs. automatic; see also Fiori, 2009 ). The extent to which current ability EI tests depend on controlled processes and are affected by cognitive load is still unaddressed (Ybarra et al., 2014 ). Given that no task is process pure (Jacoby, 1991 ), both controlled and automatic processes are likely to account for responses in current ability EI tests. However, such tests require great effort and deep reasoning about emotions and thus likely tap mostly into controlled processes.

The most important implication of the engagement of two types of processing in ability EI is that each of them may predict a different type of emotional performance. More specifically, ability EI tests that rely more on emotion knowledge or the crystallized component of EI may be more suited to predict effortful and consciously accessible emotional behavior, whereas tasks meant to “catch the mind in action” (Robinson & Neighbors, 2006 ), such as those based on emotion information processing , may account mostly for spontaneous and unintentional behavior . If this is the case, then current ability EI tests may predict to a greater extent consciously accessible performance and to a lower extent emotionally intelligent behaviors that depend on spontaneous/automatic processing (Fiori, 2009 ; Fiori & Antonakis, 2012 ). The hypothesized relationship is illustrated in Fig. 2.3 .

Hypothesized effects of the fluid (EI f ) and crystallized (EI c ) ability EI components on emotional behavior

The next generation of ability EI tests will hopefully incorporate more recent theoretical advancements related to additional components of EI – such as sub- or unconscious processes or the fluid , emotion-information processing component of EI. Some may ask how the perfect measure would look like. Knowing that EI is a complex construct, it seems unlikely that “one perfect” measure that would capture all the different components of EI is in the near future. It may be more realistic to aim for “several good” measures of EI, each of them capturing key aspects of this construct with satisfactory reliability and validity. Despite some noted theoretical and practical gaps in the current literature on ability EI, the construct of EI is still in its developmental stages. With increasing interest in EI’s potential for real-world applications and its growing literature, this domain of research provides a challenging yet exciting opportunity for innovative researchers.

Change history

31 december 2019.

Chapter 2 of this book has been converted to open access and the copyright holder has been changed to ‘The Author(s)’.The book has also been updated with these changes.

Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2015). Assessment of regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs: A review of the status of the art and some suggestions to move the field forward. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33 (1), 24–32.

Google Scholar  

Allen, V., Rahman, N., Weissman, A., MacCann, C., Lewis, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2015). The Situational Test of Emotional Management–Brief (STEM-B): Development and validation using item response theory and latent class analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 81 , 195–200.

Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2), 247–261.

Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two new tests. British Journal of Psychology, 101 (3), 563–578.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38 , 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.009

Article   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bänziger, T., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotion recognition from expressions in face, voice, and body: The Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test (MERT). Emotion, 9 , 691–704.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18 , 13–25.

Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004). The importance of being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychological Science, 15 (7), 482–487.

Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36 , 129–148.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5 , 88–103.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 , 780–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12 , 197–212.

Brasseur, S., Grégoire, J., Bourdu, R., & Mikolajczak, M. (2013). The profile of emotional competence (PEC): Development and validation of a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence theory. PLoS One, 8 (5), e62635.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Burrus, J., Betnacourt, A., Holtzman, S., Minsky, J., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Emotional intelligence relates to wellbeing: Evidence from the situational judgment test of emotional management. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 4 , 151–166.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28 , 539–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00119-1

Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00012-5

Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations . New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (1), 1–28.

Côte, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 , 496–508.

David, N., Bewernick, B. H., Cohen, M. X., Newen, A., Lux, S., Fink, G. R., … Vogeley, K. (2006). Neural representations of self versus other: Visual-spatial perspective taking and agency in a virtual ball-tossing game. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (6), 898–910.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 , 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.4.989

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405–432.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (6), 1125–1134.

Fan, H., Jackson, T., Yang, X., Tang, W., & Zhang, J. (2010). The factor structure of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.0 (MSCEIT): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 48 (7), 781–785.

Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. J. (2007). Ability EI as an intelligence? Associations of the MSCEIT with performance on emotion processing and social tasks and with cognitive ability. Cognition and Emotion, 21 (5), 1043–1063.

Feldman-Barrett, L., Niedenthal, P. M., & Winkielman, P. (Eds.). (2005). Emotion: conscious and unconscious . New York: Guilford Press.

Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Extremera, N. (2016). Ability emotional intelligence, depression, and well-being. Emotion Review, 8 , 311–315.

Fiori, M. (2009). A new look at emotional intelligence: A dual process framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 , 21–44.

Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Searching for valid measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 , 329–334.

Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2012). Selective attention to emotional stimuli: What IQ and openness do, and emotional intelligence does not. Intelligence, 40 (3), 245–254.

Fiori, M., Antonietti, J. P., Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Hansenne, M., & Rossier, J. (2014). What is the ability emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) good for? An evaluation using Item Response Theory. PLoSOne, 9 (6), e98827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098827

Fiori, M. (2015). Emotional intelligence compensates for low IQ and boosts low emotionality individuals in a selfpresentation task. Personality and Individual Differences, 81 , 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.013

Fiori, M., & Ortony, A. (2016). Are emotionally intelligent individuals hypersensitive to emotions? Testing the “curse of emotion”. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016 (1), 10023.

Freeland, E. M., Terry, R. A., & Rodgers, J. L. (2008). Emotional intelligence: What’s in a name? In J. C. Cassady & M. A. Eissa (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Perspectives on educational and positive psychology (pp. 93–117). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. US.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York: Basic Books.

Gignac, G. E. (2005). Evaluating the MSCEIT V2.0 via CFA: Comment on Mayer et al. Emotion, 5 , 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.2.233

Gignac, G. E. (2008). Genos emotional intelligence inventory: technical manual . Sydney: NSW. Genos Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ . New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence . New York: Bantam Books.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 , 271–299.

Grubb, W. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The fakability of Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory Short Form: Catch me if you can. Human Performance, 20 , 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup2001_3

Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 52 , 29–36.

Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 , 513–541.

Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (2), 298–342.

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 , 54–78.

Keefer, K. V. (2015). Self-report assessments of emotional competencies: A critical look at methods and meanings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33 , 3–23.

Libbrecht, N., & Lievens, F. (2012). Validity evidence for the situational judgment test paradigm in emotional intelligence measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 47 , 438–447.

Libbrecht, N., Lievens, F., Carette, B., & Côté, S. C. (2014). Emotional intelligence predicts success in medical school. Emotion, 14 , 64–73.

Lloyd, G. (1979). The man of reason. Metaphilosophy, 10 (1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1979.tb00062.x

Lopes, P. N., Cote, S., & Salovey, P. (2006). An ability model of emotional intelligence: Implications for assessment and training. In V. Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work (pp. 53–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

MacCann, C. (2010). Further examination of emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence: A latent variable analysis of fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (5), 490–496.

MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion, 14 , 358–374.

MacCann, C., Lievens, F., Libbrecht, N., & Roberts, R. D. (2016). Differences between multimedia and text-based assessments of emotion management: An exploration with the Multimedia Emotion Management Assessment (MEMA). Cognition and Emotion, 30 (7), 1317–1331.

MacCann, C., Pearce, N., & D Roberts, R. (2011). Emotional intelligence as assessed by situational judgment and emotion recognition tests: Building the nomological net. Psihologijske Teme, 20 (3), 393–412.

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8 , 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012746

MacCann, C., Wang, L., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2010). Emotional intelligence and the eye of the beholder: Comparing self- and parent-rated situational judgments in adolescents. Journal of Research in Personality, 44 , 673–676.

MacLean, P. D. (1949). Psychosomatic disease and the visceral brain: Recent developments bearing on the Papez theory of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 11 , 338–353.

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 , 133–163.

Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 , 554–564.

Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1 , 167–195.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P., et al. (2000). A new test to measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24 , 179–209.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Nakagawa, S., & 37 Members of the Multinational Study of Cultural Display Rules. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 , 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.925

Maul, A. (2012). The validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence. Emotion Review, 4 , 394–402.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for intelligence. Intelligence, 27 , 267–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00016-1

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8 (4), 290–300.

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 507–536.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test manual . Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2005). The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test – Youth Version (MSCEIT-YV), research version . Toronto, ON: Multi Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63 , 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3 , 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

Maillefer, A., Udayar, S., & Fiori, M. (submitted). Enhancing the prediction of emotionally intelligent behavior: The PAT framework of EI Involving Trait EI, Ability EI, and Emotion Information Processing.

Mikolajczak, M. (2009). Moving beyond the ability-trait debate: A three level model of emotional intelligence. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 5 , 25–31.

Montgomery, J. M., McCrimmon, A. W., Schwean, V. L., & Saklofske, D. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence in Asperger Syndrome: Implications of dissonance between intellect and affect. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45 , 655–582.

Nemiah, J. C., Freyberger, H., & Sifneos, P. E. (1976). Alexithymia: A view of the psychosomatic process. In O. W. Hill (Ed.), Modern trends in psychosomatic medicine (Vol. 3, pp. 430–439). London, England: Butterworths.

Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & MacCann, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence and job performance: The importance of emotion regulation and emotional labor context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (2), 159–164.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual Differences in the Nonverbal Communication of Affect The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18 , 9–35.

O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32 , 788–818.

Ortony, A., Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. (2008) Why emotional intelligence needs a fluid component. In Matthews, G., Roberts, R., Zeidner, M. (eds) Emotional ... Revelle, W. (2007) Experimental approaches to the study of personality, In B. Robins, C. Fraley, and R. Krueger, Personality Research Methods, Guilford. p. 37–61.

Palmer, B., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test version 2.0. Intelligence, 33 , 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.003

Papadogiannis, P. K., Logan, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). An ability model of emotional intelligence: A rationale, description, and application of the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 9–40). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_3

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15 , 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.416

Petrides, K. V., Perez-Gonzalez, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition and Emotion, 21 , 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930601038912

Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Measuring emotional intelligence in early adolescence with the MSCEIT-YV: Psychometric properties and relationship with academic performance and psychosocial functioning. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30 (4), 344–366.

Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (2007). Measuring emotional intelligence as a set of mental abilities. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 230–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., O’Brien, K., MacCann, C., Reid, J., & Maul, A. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) with established emotions measures. Emotion, 6 (4), 663–669.

Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2007). Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 419–474). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., & MacCann, C. (2008). The measurement of emotional intelligence: A decade of progress? In G. J. Boyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality . New York: Sage.

Robinson, M. D., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Catching the mind in action: Implicit methods in personality research and assessment. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 115–125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMateo, M. R., Rogers, L. P., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication. The PONS test . Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Rossen, E., Kranzler, J. H., & Algina, J. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V2.0 (MSCEIT). Personality and Individual Differences, 44 , 1258–1269.

Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 , 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00381.x

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9 , 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

Schlegel, K. (2016). Comment: Looking beyond the ability EI model facilitates the development of new performance-based tests. Emotion Review, 8 (4), 302–303.

Schlegel, K., Fontaine, J. R., & Scherer, K. R. (2017). The nomological network of emotion recognition ability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment .

Schlegel, K., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2014). Introducing the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test: An example of Rasch-based test development. Psychological Assessment, 26 , 666–672.

Schlegel, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2015). Introducing a short version of the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test (GERT-S): Psychometric properties and construct validation. Behavior Research Methods, 48 , 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0646-4

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence . New York: Viking.

Stough, C., Saklofske, D. H., & Parker, J. D. A. (2009). A brief analysis of 20 years of emotional intelligence: An introduction to assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 3–8). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_1

Tamietto, M., & De Gelder, B. (2010). Neural bases of the non-conscious perception of emotional signals. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11 (10), 697–709.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140 , 227–235.

Vesely, A. K. (2011). Differential effects of perfectionism and anxiety on trait and ability emotional intelligence (Master’s thesis). Available from DSpace at University of Calgary.

Vesely-Maillefer, A. K. (2015). Striving for teaching success: Enhancing emotional intelligence in pre-service teachers (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Western Ontario.

Vogeley, K., Bussfeld, P., Newen, A., Herrmann, S., Happé, F., Falkai, P., … Zilles, K. (2001). Mind reading: Neural mechanisms of theory of mind and self-perspective. NeuroImage, 14 (1), 170–181.

Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or folderol? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25 , 45–59.

Ybarra, O., Kross, E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). The “big idea” that is yet to be: Toward a more motivated, contextual, and dynamic model of emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 , 93–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0106

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35 , 161–175.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & MacCann, C. (2003). Development of emotional intelligence: Toward a multi-level investment model. Human Development, 46 , 69–96.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2008). The science of emotional intelligence: Current consensus and controversies. European Psychologist, 13 , 64–78.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter benefited from the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no 100014_165605 awarded to Marina Fiori).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Marina Fiori & Ashley K. Vesely-Maillefer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Fiori .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada

Kateryna V. Keefer

James D. A. Parker

Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

Donald H. Saklofske

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution [4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)], which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Fiori, M., Vesely-Maillefer, A.K. (2018). Emotional Intelligence as an Ability: Theory, Challenges, and New Directions. In: Keefer, K., Parker, J., Saklofske, D. (eds) Emotional Intelligence in Education. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90633-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90633-1_2

Published : 14 July 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-90631-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-90633-1

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 3 min read

Mayer and Salovey: Emotional Intelligence

The first model of emotional intelligence theory.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

John Mayer and Peter Salovey, Professors at the University of New Hampshire and Yale respectively, coined the term emotional intelligence. Their thinking is the basis for much of Daniel Goleman's subsequent, more populist work. We examine the theory, which comprises the first model of modern emotional intelligence theory.

In 1990, Mayer and Salovey published Emotional Intelligence, an article that has become the basis for most EQ models. [1] In it, the authors define emotional intelligence as:

'The ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action.'

In order to distinguish this ability from other personality traits, the authors formulated a model with a cognitive focus. The model, which has four branches, is outlined below. This version is the latest, published in 1997. [2] It develops the ideas and themes expressed in the original work.

Reflective Regulation of Emotion to Promote Emotional and Intellectual Growth

The ability to:

• accept feelings, both pleasant and unpleasant
• engage/detach from an emotion depending upon how useful or applicable it is
• distinguish how emotions might affect others, and judge how useful they are
• play down negative emotion and enhance positive emotion to your own ends

Understanding and Analyzing Emotions

• identify emotions
• interpret the meanings that emotions convey
• understand complex feelings and identify combinations of emotions
• foresee the likely transitions between emotions e.g. frustration to anger

Emotional Facilitation of Thinking

• use emotions to help prioritize thinking and attention
• use vivid emotions to generate memory and help with difficult judgment calls
• reach and appreciate multiple points of view based on changes in emotional state
• use emotional states specifically to encourage a way of tackling a problem or challenge

Perception, Appraisal and Expression of Emotion

• recognize an emotion through body language, behavior, thoughts
• recognize emotions in others, and identify emotional states suggested by art, music or design
• accurately explain feelings and express the needs associated with those feelings
• discriminate between an honest and dishonest interpretation of an emotional state

Mayer and Salovey have now turned their attention to the application of EQ to education. Despite Goleman’s admission that his book Emotional Intelligence owes a great deal to their work, Mayer and Salovey continue to criticize it heavily, claiming that it is not sufficiently rigorous to comprise a model. [3]

They have however developed their own model (The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™)), which is based on individual ability to solve emotional problems, thus omitting subjectivities of self-concept, response set and emotional state. [4]

[1] Mayer and Salovey, ‘Imagination, Cognition and Personality’, Emotional Intelligence (1990).

[2] Mayer and Sluyter (eds.) Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications (1997).

[3] Mayer, ‘Emotional Intelligence: Popular or Scientific Psychology?’, APA Monitor (September, 1999).

[4] www.mhs.com

Join Mind Tools and get access to exclusive content.

This resource is only available to Mind Tools members.

Already a member? Please Login here

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

Great teams begin with empowered leaders. Our tools and resources offer the support to let you flourish into leadership. Join today!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Written Communication

Stress Busters

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Overcoming procrastination.

Discover effective techniques to help you beat your procrastination habit

Improving Productivity

How to get more done by focusing on critical tasks, managing stress and achieving flow

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

The five conversations framework.

An Alternative Approach to Appraisals

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Cope With Emotional Stress

Elizabeth Scott, PhD is an author, workshop leader, educator, and award-winning blogger on stress management, positive psychology, relationships, and emotional wellbeing.

Carly Snyder, MD is a reproductive and perinatal psychiatrist who combines traditional psychiatry with integrative medicine-based treatments.

PeopleImages/E+ / Getty Images

Symptoms of Emotional Stress

• What Causes It
• How You Can Cope
• How to Get Help
• Boost Your Resilience

We all experience stress, leading to various physical and psychological reactions. It can also affect our emotions. Emotional stress is a strong, negative response that leads to challenging emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, worry, or frustration. 

Emotional stress can be challenging because our ways of dealing with this stress can sometimes backfire. Thinking about a solution or discussing solutions with a good friend—coping behaviors that are often useful and effective in solving problems—can quickly deteriorate into rumination and co-rumination, which are not so helpful.

Rumination can exacerbate your stress levels, so it helps to have healthy strategies for coping with emotional stress and redirecting yourself away from rumination and avoidance coping and more toward emotionally proactive approaches to stress management.​

At a Glance

Emotional stress is a part of life—we all experience it occasionally, whether caused by a difficult breakup, a demanding job, or simply due to everyday challenges. It can feel like a whirlwind of emotions threatening to engulf us. The good news is that you can take steps to regain control. Understanding emotional stress is the first step toward mastering it. 

We all experience stress differently. Because of this, symptoms of emotional stress can vary from one person to the next. Recognizing some common signs of emotional stress is an integral part of figuring out how to manage it.

It's important to remember that this type of stress doesn't just impact your emotions. It also affects your physical health, cognitive abilities, and relationships with others. Common symptoms include:

Physical Symptoms

• Lack of energy
• Problems falling or staying asleep
• Gastrointestinal problems
• Muscle tension

Emotional Symptoms

• Feeling overwhelmed
• Irritability
• Mood swings
• Nervousness

Cognitive Symptoms

• Trouble concentrating
• Difficulty with memory
• Intrusive thoughts
• Racing thoughts

Behavioral Symptoms

• Changes in appetite
• Emotional eating
• Problems with substance use
• Procrastination
• Social withdrawal

Causes of Emotional Stress

Relationship stress carries a heavy toll on our emotional lives and creates strong emotional responses. Our relationships greatly impact our lives—for better or for worse.

Healthy relationships can bring good times, but also resources in times of need, added resilience in times of stress, and even increased longevity. However, conflicted relationships and 'frenemies' can make us worse off in our emotional lives, and can even take a toll physically .

Relationships aren't the only cause of emotional stress , however. Financial crises, an unpleasant work environment, or a host of other stressors can cause emotional stress, which sometimes tempts us toward unhealthy coping behaviors to escape the pain, especially when the situations seem hopeless.

Sources of Emotional Stress

Other causes of emotional stress include:

• Work stress, including worries about performance, job security, burnout, long hours, and poor working conditions
• Life changes, such as moving, getting married, getting divorced, or having a child
• Living conditions, such as living in areas where you are faced with a lack of resources
• Racism and discrimination
• Poor health habits
• Lack of access to healthcare
• Parenting challenges and lack of adequate childcare
• Unresolved trauma
• Mental health conditions
• Chronic health conditions

Perhaps one of the more challenging aspects of coping with emotional stress is the feeling of being unable to change the situation. If we can't change our stress levels by eliminating the stressful situation, we can work on our emotional response to it.

Coping With Emotional Stress

Finding ways to manage emotional stress is critical not just to your mental health, but to your physical health as well. Too much stress is linked to a whole host of serious health consequences, from cardiovascular disease to depression.

Fortunately, while you can't always fix these situations overnight, you can lessen the emotional stress you feel, and the toll this stress takes on you. Here are some exercises you can try to effectively cope with emotional stress.

Label Your Emotions

"One underrated and often overlooked simple strategy to cope with emotional stress is learning how to accurately identify and label your emotional state," explains Lindsey Rae Ackerman, LMFT .

Research shows this to be an effective strategy for increasing individuals' ability to regulate themselves at the moment. Utilizing inner dialogue such as, "I’m feeling overwhelmed with anger right now" can be tremendously supportive in moments of distress.

This practice, known as affect labeling, has been shown to help reduce the intensity of emotional distress.

Press Play For Advice On Dealing With Stress

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can change your mindset to cope with stress in a healthy way.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts / RSS

Practice Mindfulness

Nicole Bentley, LCSW , a licensed therapist based in Chicago, recommends engaging in observational mindfulness when you are experiencing emotional distress. 

"Take a few deep breaths to start, then begin to draw your attention to the details of the space you are in. Choose a color and try to identify everything of that color. Notice the smells in your environment, and observe the items around you in great detail. This will help to ground you in the present moment, and reduce feelings of distress," she explains.

When we feel emotional stress, it's also often experienced as physical pain. You may feel a 'heavy' feeling in the chest, an unsettled feeling in the stomach, a dull headache.

It's common to try to escape these feelings, but it can actually be helpful to go deeper into the experience and use mindfulness to really notice where these emotional responses are felt physically.

Some people notice that the pain seems more intense before dissipating, but then they feel the emotional and physical pain is lessened.

Distract Yourself

Common belief used to be   that if we didn't express every emotion we felt (or at least the big ones), they would show themselves in other ways. In some ways, this is true. There are benefits to examining our emotional states to learn from what our emotions are trying to tell us, and 'stuffing our emotions' in unhealthy ways can bring other problems.

However, it's also been discovered that distracting oneself from emotional pain with emotionally healthy alternatives—such as a feel-good movie, fun activities with friends, or a satisfying mental challenge—can lessen emotional pain and help us feel better.

Give Yourself a Break

Dealing with emotional stress doesn't have to involve adding more things to you "to do" list. Sometimes, it can be as simple as giving yourself a break.

"My biggest tip is to build 'downtime' into your day—if you need to schedule it to do it, then schedule it! Reframe downtime into something that is productive. Taking time to recharge makes you more productive during your 'on time," says Kelsey M. Latimer, PhD, CEDS-S, BSN/RN .

Block Off Some Time

If you find that emotional stress and rumination creep into your awareness quite a bit, and distraction doesn't work, try scheduling some time—an hour a day, perhaps—where you allow yourself to think about your situation fully and mull over solutions, concoct hypothetical possibilities, replay upsetting exchanges, or whatever you feel the emotional urge to do.

Journaling is a great technique to try here, especially if it's done as both an exploration of your inner emotional world and an exploration of potential solutions. Talk to your friends about the problem, if you'd like. Fully immerse yourself. And then try some healthy distractions.

This technique works well for two reasons. First, if you really have the urge to obsess, this allows you to satisfy that craving in a limited context. Also, you may find yourself more relaxed the rest of the day because you know that there will be a time to focus on your emotional situation; that time is just later.

Another tactic that can help, recommends Shauna Springer, PhD , a licensed clinical psychologist, involves identifying the things within your control.

"Take out a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. In the left column, identify all the things that are not under your control. In the right column, identify specific things you can do to exert some control and then identify one or two things from the right column to take action on," she explains.

This is a powerful antidote to feeling helpless and out of control when emotional stress hits.

Practice Meditation

Meditation is very helpful for dealing with a variety of stressors, and emotional stress is definitely in the category of stressors that meditation helps with. It allows you to take a break from rumination by actively redirecting your thoughts, and provides practice in choosing thoughts, which can help eliminate some emotional stress in the long term.

Try Deep Breathing Exercises

Deep breathing can also be a highly effective way to manage feelings of anxiety and calm your body in times of stress.

Alex Anderson-Kahl, EdS, NCSP , a nationally certified school psychologist, recommends using breathing techniques to help soothe emotional distress.  

In one technique known as ebb and flow, you visualize yourself by the ocean's shore. As you breathe in, you imagine the waves rolling in and bringing a sense of calm. You envision the waves carrying away your stress and anxiety as you exhale. 

"By tapping into these vivid landscapes, you can create a mental sanctuary, offering a refreshing escape from the daily grind. These techniques will allow you to relax, transport yourself, find tranquility," Anderson-Kahl explains.

How to Get Help for Emotional Stress

If you find your level of emotional stress interfering with your daily activities or threatening your well-being in other ways, you may consider seeing a therapist for help working through emotional issues. 

Whatever the cause of your emotional stress, you can work toward lessening and managing it and feeling better in the process without losing the 'messages' that your emotions are bringing you.

Your therapist can work with you to identify what's causing your emotional stress and develop healthier ways of coping. Understanding the sources of your stress may also help you discover ways to eliminate the problem, or at least lessen it's impact on your life.

How to Build Greater Resilience to Emotional Stress

Caring for your mind and your body can also play a protective role, making you more resilient in the face of emotional stress. Some things that you can do to help ensure that you are taking the best possible care of yourself include:

Getting Enough Sleep

The rest that you get each night can have a significant impact on your mental well-being. When you get enough sleep, the stressful things you experience during the day may seem less daunting. Of course, being under stress makes it much more challenging to get enough sleep each night, especially if you find yourself lying away worrying.

Some things that might help improve your sleep include making sure your bedroom is a cozy, comfy sleep sanctuary and creating a nightly bedtime routine that leaves you ready to drift off as soon as your head hits the pillow.

Try are a warm bath, a cup of chamomile tea, and a peaceful meditation before you lie down.

Move Your Body

There's a growing body of research demonstrating just how important exercise is to your mental well-being. In addition to combatting symptoms of depression and anxiety, getting your heart pumping and your body moving can also leave you better equipped to deal with emotional stress.

Hitting the gym is an option if that's something that works for you, but any type of moderate-intensity exercise will work. Consider activities you enjoy, like cycling, jogging, walking, gardening, skating, hiking, or rowing. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests getting 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise and two days of muscle-strengthening activity each week.

Get Support From Friends and Family

Social connections are vital for mental health and managing emotional stress. When you start to feel overwhelmed, reach out to friends and family members who can help.

Evidence suggests that social support can reduce psychological distress and help create a buffer against the health-damaging effects of stress.

When we feel stressed out, having support from other people can help build us up. We feel stronger and better able to deal with the challenges we're facing. Plus, we know we have someone to turn to for comfort and validation.

Practice Self-Compassion

Treating yourself with kindness can also play a role in building greater resilience to emotional stress.

"When you’re experiencing emotional stress, imagine what kind, soothing words you would offer a close friend in the same circumstance. Now imagine saying that to yourself and send the same warmth, understanding, and compassion in your direction," suggests Alison McKleroy, LMFT .

If you or a loved one are struggling with stress, contact the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Helpline at 1-800-662-4357 for information on support and treatment facilities in your area.

For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database .

Office on Women's Health. Stress and your health .

Yang YC, Boen C, Gerken K, Mullan Harris K.  Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span .  PNAS . 2016;113(3):578-583. doi:10.1073/pnas.1511085112

Yaribeygi H, Panahi Y, Sahraei H, Johnston TP, Sahebkar A. The impact of stress on body function: A review .  EXCLI J . 2017;16:1057-1072. doi:10.17179/excli2017-480

Levy-Gigi E, Shamay-Tsoory S. Affect labeling: The role of timing and intensity .  PLoS One . 2022;17(12):e0279303. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279303

Alotaibi AD, Alosaimi FM, Alajlan AA, Bin Abdulrahman KA. The relationship between sleep quality, stress, and academic performance among medical students .  J Family Community Med . 2020;27(1):23-28. doi:10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_132_19

Schilling R, Colledge F, Pühse U, Gerber M. Stress-buffering effects of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness on metabolic syndrome: A prospective study in police officers .  PLoS One . 2020;15(7):e0236526. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236526

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How much physical activity do adults need ?

Bekiros S, Jahanshahi H, Munoz-Pacheco JM. A new buffering theory of social support and psychological stress .  PLoS One . 2022;17(10):e0275364. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275364

By Elizabeth Scott, PhD Elizabeth Scott, PhD is an author, workshop leader, educator, and award-winning blogger on stress management, positive psychology, relationships, and emotional wellbeing.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

10.4: What are the theories of multiple intelligences and emotional intelligence?

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 86297

• Jennfer Kidd, Jamie Kaufman, Peter Baker, Patrick O'Shea, Dwight Allen, & Old Dominion U students
• Old Dominion University

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

By Meagan Keith

Learning Objectives

• recognize and define Gardner's ten intelligences
• distinguish traditional views of intelligence (e.g., IQ) from Multiple Intelligences and Emotional Intelligence
• identify which kind of learning is best for them (e.g., visual, kinesthetic, etc.)

What is intelligence?

The traditional view of intelligence has always been that people are born with a fixed amount of intelligence in which that level does not change over a lifetime (Hampton, 2008). Under the traditional view of intelligence, intelligence consists of two abilities—logic and language. Short answer tests, such as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test, are common ways of measuring intelligence.

However, in the past twenty years or so, a more modern view of intelligence has begun to replace existing traditional views. Extensive research has shown that it is, indeed, possible to have more than one intelligence and that the level of intelligence can change over a lifetime. This theory of intelligence is called Multiple Intelligences as created by Howard Gardner, Ph.D., a psychologist and professor of neuroscience from Harvard University.

According to Gardner, “Intelligence is the ability to respond successfully to new situations and the capacity to learn from one’s past experiences” (Hampton, 2008). Gardner believes that, “we all possess at least [seven] unique intelligences through which we are able to learn and teach new information” (Hampton, 2008). He believes that “we can all improve each of the intelligences, though some people will improve more readily in one intelligence area than the others” (Hampton, 2008).

Gardner does not believe in short-answer tests to measure intelligence because “short answer tests do not measure disciplinary mastery or deep understanding, rather they measure root memorization skills and only one’s ability to do well on short-answer tests” (Hampton, 2008). Assessments that value the process over the final answer, such as the Performance Assessment in Math (PAM) and the Performance Assessment in Language (PAL), are more accurate measures of intelligence in Gardner’s theory than short-answer tests.

Introduction to Multiple Intelligences

In 1983 Howard Gardner proposed his theory of multiple intelligences in the book Frames of the Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences . In his book, Gardner proposes that there are seven possible intelligences—linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, visual-spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence. Gardner would go on to add three more intelligences to his list—naturalist intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and existential intelligence—in his later book Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligence for the 21st Century (1999).

According to the Educational Researcher , to arrive at Gardner’s first seven intelligences Gardner and his colleagues examined literature on the “development of cognitive capacities in normal individuals, the breakdown of cognitive capacities under various kinds of organic pathology, and the existence of abilities in ‘special populations,’ such as prodigies, autistic individuals, idiots savants, and learning disabled children” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989).

Gardner and his colleagues also examined literature on “forms of intellect that exist in different species, forms of intellect valued in different cultures, the evolution of cognition across the millennia, as well as two forms of psychological evidence—the results of factor-analytic studies of human cognitive capacities and the outcome of studies of transfer and generalization” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989).

Intelligences that appeared repeatedly in Gardner’s research were added to a provisional list, whilst intelligences only appearing once or twice were discarded. Gardner claimed that, “as a species, human beings have evolved over the millennia to carry out at least these seven forms of thinking” on his provisional list (Gardner & Hatch, 1989).

Multiple Intelligences Defined

Linguistic intelligence is the ability to learn languages and use language to express what is on one’s mind and to understand people. Those who have high linguistic intelligence are well-developed in verbal skills and have sensitivity to sounds, meanings and rhythms of words (Hampton, 2008). These kinds of people enjoy reading various kinds of literature, playing word games, making up poetry and stories, and getting into involved discussions with other people (Hampton, 2008).

Examples of people with high linguistic ability include poets, writers, public speakers, TV and radio newscasters, and journalists.

Logical-Mathematical intelligence is the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively, and think logically. Those who are “math smart” have the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate scientifically (Smith, 2008). Those with high Logical-Mathematical intelligence are highly capable of thinking conceptually and abstractly (Hampton, 2008). This kind of intelligence is often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking (Hampton, 2008).

Careers that “math smart” people tend to be employed in include computer technicians and programmers, accountants, poll takers, medical professionals, and math teachers (Smith, 2008).

Musical Intelligence is “the capacity to think in music, to be able to hear patterns, recognize them, and manipulate them” (Hampton, 2008). Those who are musically intelligent learn through sounds, rhythms, tones, beats, music produced by other people or present in the environment,” according to Gardner (Hampton, 2008). Musically intelligent people also have the ability to perform, compose, and appreciate music and music patterns (Smith, 2008).

Jobs in which musical intelligence is a desired aptitude include advertising, music studio directors and recorders, singers and songwriters, conductors, and music teachers (Hampton, 2008).

Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence is defined as “having the potential of using one’s whole body or parts of the body to solve problems” (Smith, 2008). Those with high kinesthetic intelligence communicate well through body language and like to be taught through physical activity, hands-on learning, acting out, and role playing (Lane, n.d.). These kinds of people have a keen sense of body awareness and have the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements (Smith, 2008).

Gymnasts, physical therapists, mechanics, athletes, builders, dancers, doctors, surgeons, nurses, and crafts persons tend to be highly kinesthetic.

Spatial intelligence “involves the potential to recognize and use patterns of wide space and more confined areas,” according to Gardner (Smith, 2008). As well as, “the ability to manipulate and mentally rotate objects,” adds Gardner (Thompson, 1999). Graphic artists, architects, and mapmakers tend to be highly spatially intelligent. These people are very aware of their environments.

Interpersonal intelligence is the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, and desires of other people (Smith, 2008). These kinds of people are “people smart” and work well with others. Examples of people with high interpersonal intelligence include educators, salespeople, and religious and political leaders. Interpersonally intelligent people learn through personal interactions.

“[People with high interpersonal intelligence] probably have a lot of friends, show a great deal of empathy for other people, and exhibit a deep understanding of other people’s viewpoints,” according to MI Indentified (Hampton, 2008).

“ Intrapersonal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations,” according to Gardner. “It involves have an effective working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives” according to The Encyclopedia of Informal Education (Smith, 2008). People who possess high intrapersonal intelligence are “self smart.” These people know who they are, what they are capable of doing, how to react to things, what to avoid, and what they gravitate to (Hampton, 2008).

Psychologists, philosophers, social workers, and counselors are all examples of “self smart” careers.

Naturalist intelligence is defined as the ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature (Hampton, 2008). Those with high naturalist intelligence include gardeners, biologists, birdwatchers, florists, horticulturists and more.

According to EdWeb , “People who are sensitive to changes in weather patterns or are adept at distinguishing nuances between large numbers of similar objects may be expressing naturalist intelligence abilities” (Carvin, n.d.). Naturalist intelligence is the intelligence that presumably helped our ancestors survive—“to decide what to eat and what to run from” (Holmes, 2002).

Existential Intelligence is defined as the ability to be sensitive to, or having the capacity for, conceptualizing or tackling deeper or larger questions about human existence, such as what is the meaning of life? Why are we born? And why do we die (Wilson, 2005)? Existential intelligence is often called the “wondering smart” or the metaphysical intelligence.

The clearest definition of existential intelligence defined by Gardner is: “individuals who exhibit the proclivity to pose and ponder questions about life, death, and ultimate realities” (Wilson, 2005). However, Gardner has not fully committed himself to this ninth intelligence despite his book Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligence for the 21st Century in which he first mentions the possible existence of a ninth intelligence.

Spiritual Intelligence according to Dr. Cynthia Davis, clinical and corporate psychologist and emotional intelligence business coach, “is the ultimate intelligence in which we address and solve problems of meaning and value, in which we can place our actions and our lives in a wider, richer, meaning-giving context, and the intelligence with which we can assess that one course of action or one life path is more meaningful than another” (Mindwise Pty Ltd, 2004) .

“Spiritual intelligence is the intelligence that which makes us whole, integral and transformative,” according to Danah Zohar, author of Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live By (Spiritual Intelligence and Spirtual Health, 2008). Spiritual intelligence is not necessarily religious nor is it dependent upon religion as a foundation (Mindwise Pty Ltd, 2004). Characteristics of spiritual intelligence include the capacity to face and use suffering, the capacity to face and transcend pain, the capacity to be flexible, actively and spontaneously adaptive, and high self-awareness (Mindwise Pty Ltd, 2004).

GARDNER'S THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Linguistic Intelligence

“Word Smart”

Logical-Mathematical Intelligence

“Number/Reasoning smart”

Spatial Intelligence

“Picture Smart”

Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

“Body Smart”

Musical Intelligence

“Music Smart”

Interpersonal Intelligence

“People Smart”

Intrapersonal Intelligence

“Self Smart”

Naturalist Intelligence

“Nature Smart”

Existential Intelligence

“Wondering Smart”

Spiritual Intelligence

“Spiritual Smart”

Conclusion to Multiple Intelligences

"The single most important contribution education can make to a child's development is to help him towards a field where his talents best suit him, where he will be satisfied and competent."

-Howard Gardner

Since the publication of Gardner’s Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Gardner’s theory has been put into practice in schools all over the world. Gardner’s theory teaches that teachers should not teach the same material to the entire class rather individualize instruction by identifying students’ strengths and weaknesses.

One way of identifying students’ strengths and weaknesses is to offer a multiple intelligence assessment. Multiple Intelligence assessments typically ask students/test takers to rank statements from 1-5 indicating how well that statement describes them ("5" being the statement describes you exactly, and "1" being the statement does not describe you at all). Statements might look like the ones below from Dr. Terry Armstrong’s online assessment of strengths (Armstrong, n.d.):

• I pride myself on having a large vocabulary.
• Using numbers and numerical symbols is easy for me.
• Music is very important to me in my daily life.
• I always know where I am in relation to my home.
• I consider myself an athlete.
• I feel like people of all ages like me.
• I often look for weaknesses in myself that I see in others.
• The world of plants and animals is important to me.

Teachers can use assessments like Armstrong's to take an inventory of learner’s skills so that they can tailor their teaching methods to their learner’s strengths.

Introduction to Emotional Intelligence

Emotion can be any number of things. It can be anger, sadness, fear, enjoyment, love, surprise, disgust, or shame (Goleman, 2005, p. 289). Author of Emotional Intelligence , Daniel Goleman, suggests that emotion refers to a “feeling and its distinctive thoughts, psychological and biological states, and range of propensities to act” (Goleman, 2005, p. 289). But, the most fascinating part about emotions is that they are universal. People from cultures around the world all recognize the same basic emotions, even peoples presumably untainted by exposure to cinema or television (Goleman, 2005, p. 290).

There are two basic definitions of emotional intelligence. One is the Mayer-Salovey definition and the other, the Goleman definition. There are numerous other definitions of emotional intelligence floating about, especially on the net. However, none are as academically or scientifically accepted as Goleman's and Mayer and Salovey's.

Emotional Intelligence Defined

Mayer-Salovey Definition

The first two people to suggest that emotional intelligence is a true form of intelligence were Jack Mayer and Peter Salovey. Mayer and Salovey are leading researchers in the field of emotional intelligence. They first published their findings in a 1990 seminal article where they defining emotional intelligence as “the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions," as well as, "the ability to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Hein, 2007). Mayer and Salovey further described emotional intelligence as, “a set of skills hypothesized to contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and in others, the effective regulation of emotion in self and others, and the use of feelings to motivate, plan, and achieve in one’s life” (Hein, 2007).

Along with their definition of emotional intelligence, Mayer and Salovey proposed that there were four branches of emotional intelligence. Here is a compiled list of details from Mayer and Salovey’s 1990 and 1997 articles on the four branches of emotional intelligence:

1. Perception Appraisal and Expression of Emotion

• Ability to identify emotions in faces, music, and stories (1990)
• Ability to identify emotion in one’s physical states, feelings, and thoughts (1997)
• Ability to identify emotions in other people, designs, artwork, etc. through language, sound, appearance, and behavior (1997)
• Ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate, or honest vs. dishonest expressions of feeling (1997)

2. Emotional Facilitation of Thinking

• Ability to relate emotions to other mental sensations such as taste and color (1990)
• Ability to use emotion in reasoning and problem solving (1990)
• Emotions prioritize thinking by directing attention to important information (1997)
• Emotions are sufficiently vivid and available that they can be generated as aids to judgement and memory concerning feelings (1997)
• Emotional states differentially encourage specific problem-solving approaches such as when happiness facilitates inductive reasoning and creativity (1997)

3. Understanding and Analyzing Emotions; Employing Emotional Knowledge

• Ability to solve emotional problems such as knowing which emotions are similar, or opposites, and what relations that convey (1990)
• Ability to label emotions and recognize relations among the words and the emotions themselves, such as the relation between liking and loving (1997)
• Ability to interpret the meanings that emotions convey regarding relationships, such as that sadness often accompanies a loss (1997)
• Ability to understand complex feelings: simultaneous feelings of love and hate or blends such as awe as a combination of fear and surprise (1997)
• Ability to recognize likely transitions among emotions, such as the transition from anger to satisfaction or from anger to shame (1997)

4. Reflective Regulation of Emotions to Promote Emotional and Intellectual Growth

• Ability to understand the implications of social acts on emotions and the regulation of emotion in self and others (1990)
• Ability to stay open to feelings, both those that are pleasant and those that are unpleasant (1997)
• Ability to reflectively engage or detach from an emotion depending upon its judged informativeness or utility (1997)
• Ability to reflectively monitor emotions in relation to oneself and others, such as recognizing how clear, typical, influential or reasonable they are (1997)
• Ability to manage emotion in oneself and others by moderating negative emotions and enhancing pleasant ones, without repressing or exaggerating information they may convey (1997)

Goleman Defintion

Daniel Goleman, Ph.D., is another important figure in the field of emotional intelligence. Goleman is the successful author of New York Times bestsellers, Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence , as well as an internationally known psychologist. Goleman is currently working as a science journalist and frequently lectures to professional groups, business audiences, and on college campuses (Bio, 2009). Goleman is one of the foremost experts in emotional intelligence. In his book, Emotional Intelligence , Goleman defines emotional intelligence as, “a set of skills, including control of one’s impulses, self-motivation, empathy and social competence in interpersonal relationships” (Goleman, 2005).

Goleman, like Mayer and Salovey, divided emotional intelligence into key components; three that pertained to oneself and two that pertained to how one relates to others (Gergen, 1999). Goleman's five key components of emotional intelligence are: Emotional self-awareness, managing emotions, motivating oneself, recognizing emotions in others, and handling relationships. Goleman, for the most part, agrees with Mayer and Salovey. However, in recent years, Goleman has favored a four component system as opposed to his original five components in 1995.

Five Key Components (Goleman, 2005, p. 43-44):

1. Knowing one's emotions

• Self-awareness—recognizing a feeling as it happens —is the keystone of emotional intelligence
• The ability to monitor feelings from moment to moment is crucial to psychological insight and self-understanding
• People who know their emotions have a surer sense of how they really feel about personal decisions from whom to marry to what job to take

2. Managing emotions

• Handling feelings so they are appropriate is an ability that builds on self-awareness
• People who are poor in this ability are constantly battling feelings of distress, while those who excel in it can bounce back far more quickly from life's setbacks and upsets

3. Motivating oneself

• Marshalling emotions in the service of a goal is essential for paying attention, for self-motivation and mastery, and for creativity
• People who have this skill tend to be more highly productive and effective in whatever they undertake

4. Recognizing emotions in others

• Empathy is the fundamental people skill
• People who are empathetic are more attuned to the subtle social signals that indicate what others need or want; this makes them better at callings such as caring professions, teaching, sales, and management

5. Handling relationships

• Skill in managing emotions in others
• These are the abilities that undergird popularity, leadership, and interpersonal effectiveness
• People who excel in these skills do well at anything that relies on interacting smoothly with others

Conclusion to Emotional Intelligence

In 1998, Goleman developed a set of guidelines for The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations that could be applied in the workplace and in schools. This set of guidelines is divided into four parts: preparation, training, transfer and maintenance, and evaluation. Each phase is equally as important as the last.

Some of the first guidelines pertain to assessment. Teachers should assess the class and individuals and inform them of their strengths and weaknesses. In delivering the assessment the teacher should try to be accurate and clear. They should also allow plenty of time for the student to digest and integrate the information (Cherniss, 1998). The teacher should provide feedback in a safe and supportive environment and avoid making excuses or downplaying the seriousness of the deficiencies (Cherniss, 1998).

Other guidelines include: maximizing learner choice, encouraging people to participate, linking learning goals to personal values, adjusting expectations, and gauging readiness (Cherniss, 1998). Teachers should foster a positive relationship between their students and themselves. They should make change self-directed; tailoring a learning program that meets individual needs and circumstances.

Teachers should also set clear goals and make the steps towards those goals manageable, and not too overly ambitious (Cherniss, 1998). Teachers should provide opportunities to practice the new behaviors they have learned. Then, teachers should provide periodic feedback on the learners’ progress (Cherniss, 1998).

Teachers should rely on experiential methods of learning, such as activities that engage all the senses and that are dramatic and powerful, to aid learners in developing social and emotional competencies (Cherniss, 1998). Eventually, learners will develop a greater self-awareness. They should be able to understand how their thoughts, feelings, and behavior affect themselves and others at this point (Cherniss, 1998).

from Self Science: The Subject is Me by Karen F. Stone (Goleman, 2005, p. 305)

Self-awareness :

obeserving yourself and recognizing your feelings; building a vocabulary for feelings; knowing the relationship between thoughts, feelings, and reactions

Personal Decision-making :

examining your actions and knowing their consequences; knowing if thought or feeling is ruling a decision; applying these insights to issues such a sex and drugs

Managing Feelings :

monitoring "self-talk" to catch negative messages such as internal put-downs; realizing what is behind a feeling (e.g., the hurt that underlies anger); finding ways to handle fears and anxieties, anger and sadness

Handling Stress :

learning the value of exercise, guided imagery, relaxation methods

understandign other peoples' feelings and concerns and taking their perspective; appreciating the differences in how people feel about things

Communications :

talking about feelings effectively; becoming a good listener and question-asker; distinguishing between what someone does or says and your own reactions or judgements about it; sending "I" messages instead of blame

Self-disclosure :

valuing openness and developing trust in a relationship; knowing when it is safe to risk talking about your private feelings

identifing patterns in your emotional life and reactions; recognizing similar patterns in others

Self-acceptance :

feeling pride and seeing yourself in a positive light; recognizing your strengths and weaknesses; being able to laugh at yourself

Personal Responsibility :

taking responsibility; recognizing the consequences of your decisions and actions, accepting your feelings and moods, following through on commitments (e.g., studying)

Assertiveness :

stating your concerns and feelings without anger or passivity

Group dynamics :

cooperation; knowing when and how to lead, when to follow

Conflict resolution :

how to fight fair with other kids, with parents, with teachers; the win/win model for negotiating compromise

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

1. Who is author of the theory of multiple intelligences?

(a) Daniel Goleman

(b) Howard Gardner

(c) Mayer and Salovey

(d) Reuven Bar-On

2. Mary loves reading, writing, and telling stories. Her favorite course in school is Language arts. What kind of learning would be best for Mary?

(a) Interpersonal

(b) Kinesthetic

(c) Linguistic

(d) Spatial

3. According to Mayer and Salovey, emotional facilitation of thinking is the ability to__________.

(a) Label emotions and recognize relations among the words and the emotions themselves, such as the relation between liking and loving

(b) Relate emotions to other mental sensations such as taste and color

(c) Use emotion in reasoning and problem solving

(d) Both B and C

4. Mr. Conway likes to incorporate lots of hands-on activities into his curriculum. His often asks his students to role-play in class projects. What type of learner is Mr. Conway?

(b) Intrapersonal

(c) Kinesthetic

5. What might be a traditional view of intelligence?

(a) Intelligence is fixed at birth

(b) Standardized tests such as the Stanford-Binet tests accurately measure intelligence

(c) There is only one way to measure intelligence

(d) All of the above

Armstrong, T. (n.d.). Assessment: Find Your Strengths! Retrieved February 5, 2009, from Multiple Intelligences for Adult Literacy and Education: http://literacyworks.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html

Bio. (2009). Retrieved February 8, 2009, from DanielGoleman.info: http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/biography/

Carvin, A. (n.d.). Naturalist Intelligence . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from EdWeb: Exploring Technology and School Reform: http://www.edwebproject.org/edref.mi.th8.html

Cherniss, C. G. (1998). Guidelines for Best Practice . Retrieved February 19, 2009, from Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: eiconsortium.org/reports/guidelines.html

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences . Educational Researcher , 18 (8), 4-10. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Gergen, D. (1999, February 8). Emotional Intelligence . Retrieved February 8, 2009, from Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/february99/gergen_2-8.html

Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence (10th Anniversary ed.). New York: Bantam Books.

Hampton, R. (2008, September 30). Multiple Intelligences . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from lth3.k12.il.us/rhampton/mi/mi.html

Hein, S. (2007). Definition of Emotional Intelligence . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from Emotional Intelligences: http://eqi.org/eidefs.htm

Holmes, K. (2002, June 4). Naturalist Intelligence . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from Lesley University Library: http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/kholmes/presentations/naturalist.html

Lane, C. (n.d.). Multiple Intelligences . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from Distance Learning Technology Resource Guide: http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html

Mindwise Pty Ltd. (2004, April 13). Spirtual Intelligence . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from Mindwise: mindwise.com.au/spiritual_intelligence.shtml

Smith, M. K. (2008). Howard Gardner and Multiple Intelligences . Retrieved February 4, 2009, from The Encyclopedia of Informal Education: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

Spiritual Intelligence and Spirtual Health . (2008, February 21). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from My Health for Life: www.myhealth.gov.my/myhealth/eng/kesihatan_mental_content.jsp?lang=mental&storyid=1203581305747&storymaster=1203581305747

Thompson, H. (1999). Visual-Spatial Intelligence . Retrieved February 4, 2009, from hmt.myweb.uga.edu/webwrite/visual-spatial.htm

Wilson, L. O. (2005). Newer Views of Learning: Exploring the Ninth Intelligence-Maybe . Retrieved February 5, 2009, from ED 703: www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/ninthintelligence.htm

THE LEARNINGCOG BLOG

Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 10 – Problem Solving

This blog is part of a series of blogs exploring Emotional Intelligence. Looking at ways to be able to develop and enhance our own perceived levels of Emotional Intelligence.

What is Emotional Intelligence?

To gain a greater understanding you can read a previous blog What is Emotional Intelligence and How Can I develop it , for more detail. However, Emotional intelligence is all about how well you understand your own emotions and the emotions of others, and the ability to identify and manage them. Emotional Intelligence, also known as “Ei” or “EQ”, is now well established set of “Competencies” that contribute to performance, engagement and success.

Their are five key areas of Emotional Intelligence, Self Perception, Self Expression, Interpersonal, Decision Making and Stress Management. Each of these areas has three traits. We are going to discuss each of these traits in more detail with their own blog. We have previous looked at the area of Self Perception and now looking at Self Expression. This week we will be exploring the trait, Problem Solving.

What is Problem Solving and the relations to Emotional Intelligence?

Problem solving is the ability to identify and define problems as well as to generate an implement potentially effective solutions. In short, it involves effectively solving problems of the personal and interpersonal nature. Problem solving includes the ability to understand how emotions affect decision making. This trait is much more about your ability to solve a problem and not let it affect you and the people around you. To work through the problem in a calm and undressed manner. This may even be while the world around you is going crazy.

“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” – Albert Einstein 

How much do you use the trait of Problem Solving?

Does it take a lot of emotional effort to solve a problem?

When Problem Solving is operating well:

• Takes in enough information to make informed conclusions, but not so many details that you are overwhelmed
• Keeps a clear head on the pertinent issues, without becoming frustrated
• Generates motivation for others to act in a way that will achieve goals
• Likely to take action

When Problem Solving is low:

• May prefer others to make decisions for you
• May struggle to keep a clear focus on the situation at hand
• Much of their time and energy is spent worrying about decisions rather than trying to solve them
• Prefers to deal with impractical problems rather than people

Developing skills around Problem Solving

During Learning Cog’s Emotional Intelligence (EQ) Masterclass, starting with ‘Self-Perception’, we explain how to assess you own emotional intelligence and how to develop your EQ awareness. Here in this blog we have added some areas to think about when developing Problem Solving.

Observation

• Who do you know who is good in their problem solving?
• What do they actually do to solve problems (list the steps)?
• How do they go about finding out information about the problem, in order to get a complete picture?
• When trying to solve the problem, how much time are they talking and how much time do they allow others to talk?

Self Coaching

• What is your preferred approach to problem-solving? e.g. Avoid the problem, we looked at the last minute and grab the first answer that comes to mind, take a systematic approach
• How do you respond when I have a problem?
• When you deal with problems, either well or badly, what do people say about what you did?
• Last time you handled a problem well, how did you feel, and what did you do that was key to successful outcome?

Thinking and Reflection

Here is an exercise for you to complete to help build your understanding of your own Problem Solving.

Exercise – Structured Problem Solving 

Try this step-by-step guide to problem solving

• Define the real problem: find out the real problem rather than the symptoms. e.g. Complaints from employees are symptoms, the underlying cause(s) is the real problem.
• Set objectives: what objective do you want to achieve and how will you measure their successful achievement? Identify any constraints: Are any other parts of the organisation affected? Are there any time are financial are all the constraints?
• Generates and prioritise options: how many different ideas have been generated? Prioritise them and select the ones you wish to develop further.
• Choose and evaluate option: think about the possible effects of a particular option our solution. Choose the option which matches your objectives.
• Implement: put your solution into action.
• Monitor and evaluate: monitor progress, make adjustments if necessary. Have your objectives being met? What worked well that you can use next time?

It is important to actual do something when taking part in any self development. The practical is more important than the theory.

• Distinguish between important and not so important problems, so you know how much time to spend on them.
• Try to define and clarify what exactly the problem is.
• Make an effort to understand how the problem developed, see the way it is affecting you and others and why.
• Identify all the stakeholders in a problem and what their interest/needs are.
• Practice differentiating important from not so important problems to develop the appropriate amount of energy to solving down.
• Generate solutions to problems before making a decision.
• Attempt to achieve a win/win solution, which meets the needs of all parties.
• Use problem-solving and analysis tools and processes e.g. Force field analysis, pros and cons, fish bone technique, etc
• When you have decided on the best way of dealing with the problem, go ahead and do it. It doesn’t work, try another possible solution.
• Bank and the good times.
• When you have done something really well take time to reflect on how well you did it and bank. To be able to use next time your are faced with a similar problem.

The more time you spend observing yourself and the people around you, the more you develop your Problem Solving. Give yourself time, it may feel mechanical, clumsy and awkward at first, but with practice it will become quick and easy and automatic. Why not get in touch and talk to us more about developing Emotional Intelligence in yourself, your Leadership Team or your whole business. [email protected]

Look out for the next blog on Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 11 – Reality Testing

Or read previous blogs:

What is emotional intelligence? and how can I develop it…

1 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 1 – Self Regard

2 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 2 – Self Actualisation

3 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 3 – Emotional Self Awareness

4 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 4 – Emotional Expression

5 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 5 – Assertiveness

6 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 6 – Independence

7 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 7 – Social Responsibility

8 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 8 – Empathy

9 Developing Emotional Intelligence – Part 9 – Interpersonal Relationships 

Did you know we currently offer [Virtual] Emotional Intelligence testing and training?

Before the workshop you will be invited to take part in a pre-course activity which includes an online self-assessment producing a 20 page personal Emotional Intelligence Report.

An employee’s skills and qualifications are important for success within their role. An employee’s Emotional Intelligence is just as important, if not more so, for fulfilment within, or potentially beyond, their current role. The Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace workshop is designed to as part of an individual’s development in work settings. It helps individuals focus on the impact of emotional intelligence at work and offers suggestions for working more effectively in one’s role, with colleagues, managers and clients.

• Understand the impact of Emotional Intelligence on themselves and the people around them
• Quickly identify patterns in own and others Emotional Intelligence
• Create a clear, organised understanding of their strengths and weaknesses in a constructive way.
• Effectively measure where they currently are and wants to be by comparing results against sample groups of general population
• Make instant connections between different subscales of Emotional Intelligence and help leverage EI strengths and improve EI weaknesses.
• Create an action plan to develop key areas of Emotional Intelligence
• Become a more effect member of the team and organisation – This virtual session is 4 hours with a 1 hour break. – All of our Virtual Learning workshops are conducted via  Zoom . – Virtual learning begins at 10.30am through to 12.30pm and then again from 1.30pm to 3.30pm.  – You will receive an electronic version of your Emotional Intelligence report, and workshop materials will be sent via post.

To discover more about Emotional Intelligence and how LearningCog can help you, head over to our dedicated Emotional Intelligence page.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related posts.

Education and Training Awards 2023

Education and Training Awards 2022

What To Ask Your Leadership Development Consultant?

Things High Performance Teams do Differently

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team Summary

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

What Is Intelligence In Psychology

Charlotte Ruhl

Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Intelligence in psychology refers to the mental capacity to learn from experiences, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment. It includes skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, learning quickly, and understanding complex ideas.

Key Takeaways

• Defining and classifying intelligence is extremely complicated. Theories of intelligence range from having one general intelligence (g) to certain primary mental abilities and multiple category-specific intelligences.
• Following the creation of the Binet-Simon scale in the early 1900s, intelligence tests, now referred to as intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, are the most widely-known and used measure for determining an individual’s intelligence.
• Although these tests are generally reliable and valid tools, they have flaws as they lack cultural specificity and can evoke stereotype threats and self-fulfilling prophecies.
• IQ scores are normally distributed , meaning that 95% of the population has IQ scores between 70 and 130. However, some extreme examples exist of people with scores far exceeding 130 or far below 70.

What Is Intelligence?

It might seem useless to define such a simple word. After all, we have all heard this word hundreds of times and probably have a general understanding of its meaning.

However, the concept of intelligence has been a widely debated topic among members of the psychology community for decades.

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: higher level abilities (such as abstract reasoning, mental representation, problem solving, and decision making), the ability to learn, emotional knowledge, creativity, and adaptation to meet the demands of the environment effectively.

Psychologist Robert Sternberg defined intelligence as “the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any environmental context (1997, p. 1).

History of Intelligence

The study of human intelligence dates back to the late 1800s when Sir Francis Galton (the cousin of Charles Darwin) became one of the first to study intelligence.

Galton was interested in the concept of a gifted individual, so he created a lab to measure reaction times and other physical characteristics to test his hypothesis that intelligence is a general mental ability producing biological evolution (hello, Darwin!).

Galton theorized that because quickness and other physical attributes were evolutionarily advantageous, they would also provide a good indication of general mental ability (Jensen, 1982).

Thus, Galton operationalized intelligence as reaction time.

Operationalization is an important process in research that involves defining an unmeasurable phenomenon (such as intelligence) in measurable terms (such as reaction time), allowing the concept to be studied empirically (Crowthre-Heyck, 2005).

Galton’s study of intelligence in the laboratory setting and his theorization of the heritability of intelligence paved the way for decades of future research and debate in this field.

Theories of Intelligence

Some researchers argue that intelligence is a general ability, whereas others make the assertion that intelligence comprises specific skills and talents. Psychologists contend that intelligence is genetic, or inherited, and others claim that it is largely influenced by the surrounding environment.

As a result, psychologists have developed several contrasting theories of intelligence as well as individual tests that attempt to measure this very concept.

Spearman’s General Intelligence (g)

General intelligence, also known as g factor, refers to a general mental ability that, according to Spearman, underlies multiple specific skills, including verbal, spatial, numerical, and mechanical.

Charles Spearman, an English psychologist, established the two-factor theory of intelligence back in 1904 (Spearman, 1904). To arrive at this theory, Spearman used a technique known as factor analysis.

Factor analysis is a procedure through which the correlation of related variables is evaluated to find an underlying factor that explains this correlation.

In the case of intelligence, Spearman noticed that those who did well in one area of intelligence tests (for example, mathematics) also did well in other areas (such as distinguishing pitch; Kalat, 2014).

In other words, there was a strong correlation between performing well in math and music, and Spearman then attributed this relationship to a central factor, that of general intelligence (g).

Spearman concluded that there is a single g-factor that represents an individual’s general intelligence across multiple abilities and that a second factor, s, refers to an individual’s specific ability in one particular area (Spearman, as cited in Thomson, 1947).

Together, these two main factors compose Spearman’s two-factor theory.

Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities

Thurstone (1938) challenged the concept of a g-factor. After analyzing data from 56 different tests of mental abilities, he identified a number of primary mental abilities that comprise intelligence as opposed to one general factor.

The seven primary mental abilities in Thurstone’s model are verbal comprehension, verbal fluency, number facility, spatial visualization, perceptual speed, memory, and inductive reasoning (Thurstone, as cited in Sternberg, 2003).

Although Thurstone did not reject Spearman’s idea of general intelligence altogether, he instead theorized that intelligence consists of both general ability and a number of specific abilities, paving the way for future research that examined the different forms of intelligence.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Following the work of Thurstone, American psychologist Howard Gardner built off the idea that there are multiple forms of intelligence.

He proposed that there is no single intelligence, but rather distinct, independent multiple intelligences exist, each representing unique skills and talents relevant to a certain category.

Gardner (1983, 1987) initially proposed seven multiple intelligences : linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, and he has since added naturalist intelligence.

Gardner holds that most activities (such as dancing) will involve a combination of these multiple intelligences (such as spatial and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences). He also suggests that these multiple intelligences can help us understand concepts beyond intelligence, such as creativity and leadership .

And although this theory has widely captured the attention of the psychology community and the greater public, it does have its faults.

There have been few empirical studies that actually test this theory, and this theory does not account for other types of intelligence beyond the ones Gardner lists (Sternberg, 2003).

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Just two years later, in 1985, Robert Sternberg proposed a three-category theory of intelligence, integrating components that were lacking in Gardner’s theory. This theory is based on the definition of intelligence as the ability to achieve success based on your personal standards and your sociocultural context.

According to the triarchic theory, intelligence has three aspects: analytical, creative, and practical (Sternberg, 1985).

Analytical intelligence , also referred to as componential intelligence, refers to intelligence that is applied to analyze or evaluate problems and arrive at solutions. This is what a traditional IQ test measures.

Creative intelligence is the ability to go beyond what is given to create novel and interesting ideas. This type of intelligence involves imagination, innovation, and problem-solving.

Practical intelligence is the ability that individuals use to solve problems faced in daily life when a person finds the best fit between themselves and the demands of the environment.

Adapting to the demands of the environment involves either utilizing knowledge gained from experience to purposefully change oneself to suit the environment (adaptation), changing the environment to suit oneself (shaping), or finding a new environment in which to work (selection).

Other Types of Intelligence

After examining the popular competing theories of intelligence, it becomes clear that there are many different forms of this seemingly simple concept.

On the one hand, Spearman claims that intelligence is generalizable across many different areas of life, and on the other hand, psychologists such as Thurstone, Gardener, and Sternberg hold that intelligence is like a tree with many different branches, each representing a specific form of intelligence.

To make matters even more interesting, let’s throw a few more types of intelligence into the mix!

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence is the “ability to monitor one’s own and other people’s emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990).

Emotional intelligence is important in our everyday lives, seeing as we experience one emotion or another nearly every second of our lives. You may not associate emotions and intelligence with one another, but in reality, they are very related.

Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize the meanings of emotions and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). The four key components of emotional Intelligence are (i) self-awareness, (ii) self-management, (iii) social awareness, and (iv) relationship management.

In other words, if you are high in emotional intelligence, you can accurately perceive emotions in yourself and others (such as reading facial expressions), use emotions to help facilitate thinking, understand the meaning behind your emotions (why are you feeling this way?), and know how to manage your emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

Fluid vs. Crystallized Intelligence

Raymond Cattell (1963) first proposed the concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence and further developed the theory with John Horn.

Fluid intelligence is the ability to problem solve in novel situations without referencing prior knowledge, but rather through the use of logic and abstract thinking. Fluid intelligence can be applied to any novel problem because no specific prior knowledge is required (Cattell, 1963). As you grow older fluid increases and then starts to decrease in the late 20s.

Crystallized intelligence refers to the use of previously-acquired knowledge, such as specific facts learned in school or specific motor skills or muscle memory (Cattell, 1963). As you grow older and accumulate knowledge, crystallized intelligence increases.

The Cattell-Horn (1966) theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence suggests that intelligence is composed of a number of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual intelligence.

For example, if you are taking a hard math test, you rely on your crystallized intelligence to process the numbers and meaning of the questions, but you may use fluid intelligence to work through the novel problem and arrive at the correct solution. It is also possible that fluid intelligence can become crystallized intelligence.

The novel solutions you create when relying on fluid intelligence can, over time, develop into crystallized intelligence after they are incorporated into long-term memory.

This illustrates some of the ways in which different forms of intelligence overlap and interact with one another, revealing its dynamic nature.

Intelligence Testing

Binet-simon scale.

During the early 1900s, the French government enlisted the help of psychologist Alfred Binet to understand which children were going to be slower learners and thus required more assistance in the classroom (Binet et al., 1912).

As a result, he and his colleague, Theodore Simon, began to develop a specific set of questions that focused on areas such as memory and problem-solving skills.

They tested these questions on groups of students aged three to twelve to help standardize the measure (Binet et al., 1912). Binet realized that some children were able to answer advanced questions that their older peers were able to answer.

As a result, he created the concept of mental age, or how well an individual performs intellectually relative to the average performance at that age (Cherry, 2020).

Ultimately, Binet finalized the scale, known as the Binet-Simon scale, that became the basis for the intelligence tests still used today.

The Binet-Simon scale of 1905 comprised 30 items designed to measure judgment, comprehension, and reasoning, which Binet deemed the key characteristics of intelligence.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

When the Binet-Simon scale made its way over to the United States, Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman adapted the test for American students and published the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale in 1916 (Cherry, 2020).

The Stanford-Binet Scale is a contemporary assessment that measures intelligence according to five features of cognitive ability,

including fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory. Both verbal and nonverbal responses are measured.

This test used a single number, referred to as the intelligence quotient (IQ), to indicate an individual’s score.

The average score for the test is 100, and any score from 90 to 109 is considered to be in the average intelligence range. Scores from 110 to 119 are considered to be High Average. Superior scores range from 120 to 129 and anything over 130 is considered Very Superior.

To calculate IQ, the student’s mental age is divided by his or her actual (or chronological) age, and this result is multiplied by 100. If your mental age is equal to your chronological age, you will have an IQ of 100, or average. If your mental age is 12, but your chronological age is only 10, you will have an above-average IQ of 120.

WISC and WAIS

Just as theories of intelligence build off one another, intelligence tests do too. After Terman created Stanford-Binet test, American psychologist David Wechsler developed a new tool due to his dissatisfaction with the limitations of the Stanford-Binet test (Cherry, 2020).

Like Thurstone, Gardner, and Sternberg, Wechsler believed intelligence involved many different mental abilities and felt that the Stanford-Binet scale too closely reflected the idea of one general intelligence.

Because of this, Wechsler created the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) in 1955, with the most up-to-date version being the WAIS-IV (Cherry, 2020).

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), developed by David Wechsler, is an IQ test designed to measure intelligence and cognitive ability in children between the ages of 6 and 16. It is currently in its fourth edition (WISC-V) released in 2014 by Pearson.

Above Image: WISC-IV Sample Test Question

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is an IQ test designed to measure cognitive ability in adults and older adolescents, including

verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.

The latest version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) was standardized on 2,200 healthy people between the ages of 16 and 90 years (Brooks et al., 2011).

The standardization of a test involves giving it to a large number of people of different ages to compute the average score on the test at each age level.

The overall IQ score combines the test takers’ performance in all four categories (Cherry, 2020). And rather than calculating this number based on mental and chronological age, the WAIS compares the individual’s score to the average score at that level, as calculated by the standardization process.

The Flynn Effect

It is important to regularly standardize an intelligence test because the overall level of intelligence in a population may change over time.

This phenomenon is known as the Flynn effect (named after its discoverer, New Zealand researcher James Flynn) which refers to the observation that scores on intelligence tests worldwide increase from decade to decade (Flynn, 1984).

Aptitude vs. Achievement Tests

Other tests, such as aptitude and achievement tests, are designed to measure intellectual capability. Achievement tests measure what content a student has already learned (such as a unit test in history or a final math exam), whereas an aptitude test measures a student’s potential or ability to learn (Anastasi, 1984).

Although this may sound similar to an IQ test, aptitude tests typically measure abilities in very specific areas.

Criticism of Intelligence Testing

Criticisms have ranged from the claim that IQ tests are biased in favor of white, middle-class people. Negative stereotypes about a person’s ethnicity, gender, or age may cause the person to suffer stereotype threat, a burden of doubt about his or her own abilities, which can create anxiety that result in lower scores.

Reliability and Construct Validity

Although you may be wondering if you take an intelligence test multiple times will you improve your score and whether these tests even measure intelligence in the first place, research provides reassurance that these tests are both very reliable and have high construct validity.

Reliability simply means that they are consistent over time. In other words, if you take a test at two different points in time, there will be very little change in performance or, in the case of intelligence tests, IQ scores.

Although this isn’t a perfect science, and your score might slightly fluctuate when taking the same test on different occasions or different tests at the same age, IQ tests demonstrate relatively high reliability (Tuma & Appelbaum, 1980).

Additionally, intelligence tests also reveal strong construct validity , meaning that they are, in fact, measuring intelligence rather than something else.

Researchers have spent hours on end developing, standardizing, and adapting these tests to best fit the current times. But that is also not to say that these tests are completely flawless.

Research documents errors with the specific scoring of tests and interpretation of the multiple scores (since typically, an individual will receive an overall IQ score accompanied by several category-specific scores), and some studies question the actual validity, reliability, and utility for individual clinical use of these tests (Canivez, 2013).

Additionally, intelligence scores are created to reflect different theories of intelligence, so the interpretations may be heavily based on the theory upon which the test is based (Canivez, 2013).

Cultural Specificity

There are issues with intelligence tests beyond looking at them in a vacuum.  These tests were created by Western psychologists who created such tools to measure euro-centric values.

However, it is important to recognize that the majority of the world’s population does not reside in Europe or North America, and as a result, the cultural specificity of these tests is crucial.

Different cultures hold different values and even have different perceptions of intelligence, so is it fair to have one universal marker of this increasingly complex concept?

For example, a 1992 study found that Kenyan parents defined intelligence as the ability to do without being told what needed to be done around the homestead (Harkness et al., 1992), and, given the American and European emphasis on speed, some Ugandans define intelligent people as being slow in thought and action (Wober, 1974).

Together, these examples illustrate the flexibility of defining intelligence, making capturing this concept in a single test, let alone a single number even more challenging.  And even within the U.S., do perceptions of intelligence differ?

An example is in San Jose, California, where Latino, Asian, and Anglo parents had varying definitions of intelligence.  The teachers’ understanding of intelligence was more similar to that of the Asian and Anglo communities, and this similarity predicted the child’s performance in school (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993).

That is, students whose families had more similar understandings of intelligence were doing better in the classroom.

Intelligence takes many forms, ranging from country to country and culture to culture.  Although IQ tests might have high reliability and validity, understanding the role of culture is as, if not more, important in forming the bigger picture of an individual’s intelligence.

IQ tests may accurately measure academic intelligence, but more research must be done to discern whether they truly measure practical intelligence or even just general intelligence in all cultures.

Social and Environmental Factors

Another important part of the puzzle to consider is the social and environmental context in which an individual lives and the IQ test-related biases that develop as a result.

These might help explain why some individuals have lower scores than others. For example, the threat of social exclusion can greatly decrease the expression of intelligence.

A 2002 study gave participants an IQ test and a personality inventory, and some were randomly chosen to receive feedback from the inventory indicating that they were “the sort of people who would end up alone in life” (Baumeister et al., 2002).

After a second test, those who were told they would be loveless and friendless in the future answered significantly fewer questions than they did on the earlier test.

These findings can translate into the real world where not only the threat of social exclusion can decrease the expression of intelligence but also a perceived threat to physical safety.

In other words, a child’s poor academic performance can be attributed to the disadvantaged, potentially unsafe communities in which they grow up.

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is a phenomenon in which people feel at risk of conforming to stereotypes about their social group. Negative stereotypes can also create anxiety that results in lower scores.

In one study, Black and White college students were given part of the verbal section from the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), but in the stereotype threat condition, they told students the test diagnosed intellectual ability, thus potentially making the stereotype that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites salient.

The results of this study revealed that in the stereotype threat condition, Blacks performed worse than Whites, but in the no stereotype threat condition, Blacks and Whites performed equally well (Steele & Aronson, 1995).

And even just recording your race can also result in worsened performance. Stereotype threat is a real threat and can be detrimental to an individual’s performance on these tests.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Stereotype threat is closely related to the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy in which an individual’s expectations about another person can result in the other person acting in ways that conform to that very expectation.

In one experiment, students in a California elementary school were given an IQ test, after which their teachers were given the names of students who would become “intellectual bloomers” that year based on the results of the test (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).

At the end of the study, the students were tested again with the same IQ test, and those labeled as “intellectual bloomers” significantly increased their scores.

This illustrates that teachers may subconsciously behave in ways that encourage the success of certain students, thus influencing their achievement (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), and provides another example of small variables that can play a role in an individual’s intelligence score and the development of their intelligence.

This is all to say that it is important to consider the less visible factors that play a role in determining someone’s intelligence. While an IQ score has many benefits in measuring intelligence, it is critical to consider that just because someone has a lower score does not necessarily mean they are lower in intelligence.

There are many factors that can worsen performance on these tests, and the tests themselves might not even be accurately measuring the very concept they are intended to.

Extremes of Intelligence

IQ scores are generally normally distributed (Moore et al., 2013). That is, roughly 95% of the population has IQ scores between 70 and 130. But what about the other 5%?

Individuals who fall outside this range represent the extremes of intelligence.

Those who have an IQ above 130 are considered to be gifted (Lally & French, 2018), such as Christopher Langan, an American horse rancher, who has an IQ score around 200 (Gladwell, 2008).

Those individuals who have scores below 70 do so because of an intellectual disability marked by substantial developmental delays, including motor, cognitive, and speech delays (De Light, 2012).

Some of the time, these disabilities are the product of genetic mutations.

Down syndrome, for example, resulting from extra genetic material from or a complete extra copy of the 21st chromosome, is a common genetic cause of an intellectual disability (Breslin, 2014). As such, many individuals with Down Syndrome have below-average IQ scores (Breslin, 2014).

Savant syndrome is another example of extreme intelligence. Despite having significant mental disabilities, these individuals demonstrate certain abilities in some fields that are far above average, such as incredible memorization, rapid mathematical or calendar calculation ability, or advanced musical talent (Treffert, 2009).

The fact that these individuals who may be lacking in certain areas such as social interaction and communication make up for it in other remarkable areas further illustrates the complexity of intelligence and what this concept means today, as well as how we must consider all individuals when determining how to perceive, measure, and recognize intelligence in our society.

Intelligence Today

Today, intelligence is generally understood as the ability to understand and adapt to the environment by using inherited abilities and learned knowledge.

Many new intelligence tests have arisen, such as the University of California Matrix Reasoning Task (Pahor et al., 2019), that can be taken online and in very little time, and new methods of scoring these tests have been developed too (Sansone et al., 2014).

Admission into university and graduate schools relies on specific aptitude and achievement tests, such as the SAT, ACT, and the LSAT – these tests have become a huge part of our lives.

Humans are incredibly intelligent beings and rely on our intellectual abilities daily. Although intelligence can be defined and measured in countless ways, our overall intelligence as a species makes us incredibly unique and has allowed us to thrive for generations on end.

Anastasi, A. (1984). 7. Aptitude and Achievement Tests: The Curious Case of the Indestructible Strawperson.

Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought . Journal of personality and social psychology, 83 (4), 817.

Binet, A., Simon, T., & Simon, T. (1912). A method of measuring the development of the intelligence of young children . Chicago medical book Company.

Breslin, J., Spanò, G., Bootzin, R., Anand, P., Nadel, L., & Edgin, J. (2014). Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and cognition in Down syndrome . Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56 (7), 657-664.

Brooks, B. L., Holdnack, J. A., & Iverson, G. L. (2011). Advanced clinical interpretation of the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV: Prevalence of low scores varies by level of intelligence and years of education . Assessment, 18 (2), 156-167.

Canivez, G. L. (2013). Psychometric versus actuarial interpretation of intelligence and related aptitude batteries.

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of educational psychology, 54 (1), 1.

Cherry, K. (2020). Why Alfred Binet Developed IQ Testing for Students. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581

Crowther-Heyck, H. (2005). Herbert  A. Simon: The bounds of reason in modern America . JHU Press.

De Ligt, J., Willemsen, M. H., Van Bon, B. W., Kleefstra, T., Yntema, H. G., Kroes, T., … & del Rosario, M. (2012). Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability . New England Journal of Medicine, 367 (20), 1921-1929.

Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95 (1), 29.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind . New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1987). The theory of multiple intelligence . Annals Of Dyslexia , 37, 19-35

Gignac, G. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48 (5), 639-662.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown. Harkness, S., Super, C., & Keefer, C. (1992). Culture and ethnicity: In M. Levine, W. Carey & A. Crocker (Eds.), Developmental-behavioral pediatrics (pp. 103-108).

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57 , 253-270.

Jensen, A. R. (1982). Reaction time and psychometric g. In A model for intelligence (pp. 93-132). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Heidelber Kalat, J.W. (2014). Introduction to Psychology , 10th Edition. Cengage Learning.

Lally, M., & French, S. V. (2018). Introduction  to Psychology . Canada: College of Lake County Foundation, 176-212.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence . Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.

Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I, & Flinger, M. A. (2013). The basic practice of statistics (6th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance . Child Development, 64 (1), 36-56.

Pahor, A., Stavropoulos, T., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2019). Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices. Behavior Research Methods, 51 (5), 2256-2267.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom . The urban review, 3 (1), 16-20.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence . Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9 (3), 185-211.

Sansone, S. M., Schneider, A., Bickel, E., Berry-Kravis, E., Prescott, C., & Hessl, D. (2014). Improving IQ measurement in intellectual disabilities using true deviation from population norms. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 6 (1), 16.

Spearmen, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15 , 107-197.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 , 797-811.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence . CUP Archive.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success . American psychologist, 52 (10), 1030.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Contemporary theories of intelligence. Handbook of psychology , 21-45.

Treffert, D. A. (2009). The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364 (1522), 1351-1357.

Thomson, G. (1947). Charles Spearman, 1863-1945.

Tuma, J. M., & Appelbaum, A. S. (1980). Reliability and practice effects of WISC-R IQ estimates in a normal population . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40 (3), 671-678.

Wober, J. M. (1971). Towards an understanding of the Kiganda concept of intelligence. Social Psychology Section, Department of Sociology, Makerere University.

Improving Emotional Intelligence (EQ)

• Effective Communication: Improving Your Interpersonal Skills

Body Language and Nonverbal Communication

Conflict resolution skills, anger management: help for anger issues, managing conflict with humor.

• The 5 Love Languages and Their Influence on Relationships
• Gaslighting: Turning Off the Gas on Your Gaslighter
• Online Therapy: Is it Right for You?
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness
• Children & Family
• Relationships

Are you or someone you know in crisis?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Eating Disorders
• Grief & Loss
• Personality Disorders
• PTSD & Trauma
• Schizophrenia
• Therapy & Medication
• Exercise & Fitness
• Healthy Eating
• Well-being & Happiness
• Weight Loss
• Work & Career
• Illness & Disability
• Heart Health
• Childhood Issues
• Learning Disabilities
• Family Caregiving
• Teen Issues
• Communication
• Emotional Intelligence
• Love & Friendship
• Domestic Abuse
• Healthy Aging
• Aging Issues
• Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
• Senior Housing
• End of Life
• Meet Our Team

What is empathy?

The different components of empathy, why is empathy so important, signs you or a loved one lack empathy, causes of lack of empathy, building empathy tip 1: practice listening skills, tip 2: learn to read body language, tip 3: embrace your vulnerability, tip 4: improve emotional intelligence, tip 5: explore new perspectives, empathy: how to feel and respond to the emotions of others.

Empathy helps you see things from another person’s perspective, sympathize with their emotions, and build stronger relationships—at work, school, and in your personal life. Here’s how to become more empathetic.

Empathy is the ability to see things from another’s perspective and feel their emotions. Putting yourself in another person’s shoes might lead you to act with compassion and do what you can to improve their situation. In doing so, you can reduce the other person’s distress as well as your own.

Imagine you come home to find out your spouse or partner is ill. Even if you were having a good day, you would suddenly feel their distress and tend to their needs. If a friend is angry about the way a boss treated them, you’d likely share their sense of frustration. Maybe you can’t solve their problem, but you can understand that they need to vent their emotions.

Empathy isn’t just about hardships. When your child is excited about something, you feel their joy. When your friend is laughing at a joke, you experience their amusement. Empathy allows you to deepen your relationships as you connect with friends’ and loved ones’ thoughts and feelings, and they connect with yours.

Empathy can extend to people you don’t know as well. If you saw someone sitting alone at a party, for example, you might empathize with their loneliness and chat with them. If you saw images of other people suffering on the other side of the world, you might be moved to donate resources to help alleviate their suffering. On the other hand, when you see a televised crowd roaring with joy, you might feel your spirits rise. Their delight becomes your delight.

Empathy vs sympathy

While the two words are often used interchangeably, there is a difference between sympathy and empathy. Unlike empathy, sympathy doesn’t involve sharing what someone else feels. When you’re sympathetic, you care about the person’s problem or misfortune and feel sorry for their suffering, but you don’t fully feel their pain.

When a friend experiences a bereavement, for example, if you’re sympathetic you understand why they feel sad and are grieving, and feel sorry for their loss. If you’re empathetic, though, you can also feel the grief they’re going through. Sympathy is more of a feeling of pity for the person, while empathy is more a feeling of compassion for them.

Researchers tend to recognize at least two components of empathy: affective and cognitive.

Affective (or emotional) empathy is the ability to feel what others are feeling. If your spouse is stressed and sad, you might mirror those emotions. If a friend is jovial and upbeat, you might find yourself grinning as their happiness seems contagious.

Cognitive empathy is the ability to recognize and understand another person’s mental state. It gives you insight into the other person’s perspective and emotions. If you recognize that your spouse is angry, you can predict that your joke isn’t going to land well. If you can tell that your friend is feeling helpless, you won’t be surprised by their sudden outburst.

These two components of empathy require different neural networks in your brain. So, it’s possible to have high cognitive empathy but low emotional empathy and vice versa.

Empathy differences between sexes

Research shows that women are more likely to report feeling sad when they hear about the suffering of others. This matches the results of a recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, which showed that female brains appear more receptive to feeling other people’s pain. However, the study showed no differences between the sexes in cognitive empathy.

Empathy has an important role to play in your life. First, it can strengthen your bonds with the people you interact with. As you try to understand others, you also make them feel heard and understood. They’re then more likely to take the time to empathize with you as well. This deepens your relationship and promotes that feeling of connection that all of us desire.

Research shows that having a strong social support network tends to increase a person’s happiness. Because empathy leads to better relationships, it can be a key component to building a more satisfying life.

Empathy can also:

Motivate prosocial behavior . Empathy can motivate you to take actions that improve the lives of others. These actions might include anything from donating to a charity to encouraging a friend to seek help for alcohol abuse to simply comforting someone with a hug.

Guide decision-making . In social situations, empathy can help you decide on the wisest course of action. If your spouse seems stressed out from work, you can infer that it’s not the best time to ask them to take on more responsibilities.

Reduce burnout . The results of one study suggest that empathy might be useful in reducing burnout . This is because empathy allows for more effective communication and collaboration, even in difficult work environments.

Help diffuse conflict . If you’re in a bitter argument with your coworker, for example, empathizing with them can prevent you from being overly critical or needlessly cruel. Once you have a better understanding of someone else’s perspective, it’s easier to move on to proposing a compromise .

Speak to a Licensed Therapist

BetterHelp is an online therapy service that matches you to licensed, accredited therapists who can help with depression, anxiety, relationships, and more. Take the assessment and get matched with a therapist in as little as 48 hours.

Empathy isn’t something that you either have or don’t have. Some people have a high degree of empathy, while others have lower empathy.

If your empathic abilities are on the lower end of the spectrum, you might feel indifferent to other people’s pain. For example, if a friend’s house is burglarized, you might say or think, “Well, that wouldn’t have happened if you were more careful.” Or maybe you look down on family members who are dealing with financial hardship and chalk it up to their failure to work hard. You might even hold the misguided belief that bad things like that would never happen to you.

Low empathy can also lead you to believe that the people around you are too sensitive. You might constantly be surprised that your friends are offended by your jokes. Maybe you don’t understand how your words and actions wound your loved ones. This can lead to all sorts of arguments and misunderstandings.

If you have low empathy, you might have a lack of patience when dealing with people who are in distress. Perhaps your go-to piece of advice for other people is, “Just get over it.” Despite this, you tend to hold grudges and don’t forgive people for mistakes. You never seem to have the time or bandwidth to listen to other people’s perspectives or reflect on their emotional states.

Recognizing a lack of empathy in others

If a loved one is lacking in empathy, you’re likely to have some turbulent interactions. They might be impatient and overly critical, leading you to feel as if you’re walking on eggshells.

[Read: Dealing with Difficult Family Relationships]

You might notice that they’re constantly dismissing your problems or tuning out when you talk about your feelings. You might feel unheard or start to question if you really are being too sensitive. Realize that their lack of empathy is an issue only they can correct.

In some circumstances, it’s natural to feel low empathy. You might have a hard time empathizing with someone who bullied you or mistreated your loved ones. This could just be a situational lack of empathy and not reflective of how well you empathize with people in general.

Certain experiences might decrease your empathy. For example, some research indicates that empathy can decline as medical students go through training. This might be due to burnout , as med students struggle with stressful workloads and increased responsibilities. Med students might also use emotional detachment to protect themselves from psychological distress while on the job or to maintain professionalism when dealing with patients.

However, it’s by no means set in stone that experiences will have this effect. Other studies show that empathy levels in medical students either increase or remain unchanged.

Several mental health conditions, developmental disorders, and personality disorders might involve low empathy:

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) . BPD involves intense insecurity, extreme emotional swings, and an unstable self-image. People with BPD may have a normal level of cognitive empathy, but difficulty with emotional empathy.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) . Narcisists often exhibit a pattern of extreme self-centeredness and arrogance, as well as a high need for admiration. Some research shows that people with NPD may have low empathy, perhaps specifically emotional empathy. It’s also possible that they have a degree of empathy but little motivation to act on those feelings.

[Read: Personality Disorders]

Machiavellianism . This is a personality trait that involves a tendency to be manipulative and disregard morality. People with this trait may have a low drive to act on empathy.

Psychopathy . Psychopathy is a disorder characterized by callousness and antisocial behavior . Lack of emotional empathy, but not necessarily cognitive empathy, is a hallmark of this disorder.

Autism and empathy

There’s a common myth that autistic individuals lack empathy. Some, but not all, autistic people may struggle with cognitive empathy. For example, an autistic person might have trouble immediately pinpointing why another person is upset. They might even have a hard time expressing a response that matches societal norms. This shouldn’t be confused with a lack of caring.

Read: Adult Autism and Relationships .

Empathy isn’t a fixed trait. Think of it as a muscle that can be developed with exercise. Developing your listening skills, paying attention to body language , and increasing emotional intelligence can heighten your ability to empathize with others. Embracing your own vulnerability and exploring new perspectives can also help.

You can’t put yourself in another person’s shoes if you’re unwilling to hear what they have to say. That’s why listening skills are a vital part of building empathy. You’ll need to go beyond just pretending to listen. Aim to listen so intently that you gain an understanding of the person’s situation, views, and emotions.

Identify and remove barriers to listening . If you’re stressed out, you’re going to have a harder time focusing on the other person. Consider addressing the stressor —whether it’s a looming deadline or a toothache—before continuing the conversation. Multitasking is another common barrier to active listening. Put away your phone and stop whatever else you’re doing so you can give the other person your undivided attention. This is especially important during disagreements or when broaching sensitive or complex subjects.

Don’t interrupt . When you cut people off, you not only interrupt their train of thought but you also risk misunderstanding the point they were trying to make. In addition, if you’re formulating your next sentence while the other person is still talking, you’re not completely listening.

Withhold judgment . If you know you disagree with someone, you might find yourself mentally discrediting their words as they speak. But it’s best to listen with an open mind. Don’t immediately criticize or assign blame while they’re talking. Make a real effort to understand where they’re coming from.

Let the other person know you’re listening . Non-verbal cues, such as maintaining eye contact, a head nod, and verbal cues, such as a quick “uh-huh,” let the other person know they have your attention. You’re essentially inviting them to continue. If you appear to be daydreaming or thinking about something else, the speaker might take that as a sign that you don’t care.

[Read: Effective Communication]

Provide feedback . If you think you might’ve misheard or misunderstood something, pose a few follow-up questions. The person can then clarify their point if necessary.

Listening isn’t just about receiving verbal messages. People also convey information about their emotional state through nonverbal body cues. The ability to read body language is useful in all sorts of social situations.

Perhaps you have a friend who frequently says, “I’m doing OK,” but you can tell by their sullen expression that something is wrong. Or maybe you can gauge a date’s interest in you based on their level of eye contact.

People often convey messages through:

• Facial expression . Frowns, grins, hesitant smiles, and other facial expressions can convey mood.
• Eye contact . A person’s eyes might be aimed at whatever they’re focused on. Wide eyes can convey excitement. Drooping lids might imply that the person is tired or calm.
• Voice . A person’s vocal tone can tell you if they’re joking or being serious. The speed at which they talk can convey confidence or nervousness.
• Posture . Stiff, tense shoulders might indicate apprehension. Relaxed shoulders and a slouching posture might be a sign that the person is at ease or bored.
• Gestures . Lack of hand gestures may indicate shyness or discomfort. Someone who’s feeling relaxed and friendly might use their hands more. The speed and intensity of the gestures can also convey aggression or excitement.

[Read: Nonverbal Communication and Body Language]

Reading body language can be tricky. Not everyone uses the exact same nonverbal cues. And certain cues can mean multiple things. For example, is a person tapping their finger on the table because they’re feeling impatient or because they’re enjoying the song playing in the background? Here’s what to consider when trying to understand someone’s body language:

Look for consistency . Nonverbal cues should match what the other person is saying. If your spouse says they’re anxious, their fidgeting or furrowed brow might reinforce this message. In situations where body language doesn’t match what’s being said, you might need to make more of an effort to understand how the other person is feeling.

Don’t read too much into individual cues . If you focus too much on any one cue, you’re likely to misunderstand the other person. For example, just because a person is looking away from you doesn’t mean they’re disinterested. They might simply be gathering their thoughts. When reading body language, look at multiple cues to gain a more complete understanding.

Being aware of your own body language

Remember that your nonverbal cues are also conveying messages to people around you. If you’re sitting with your arms crossed and looking away from the other person, they might take that as a sign that you don’t want to talk.

If you want to encourage the person to engage with you, use positive cues, such as a gentle smile and relaxed eye contact, to project warmth. Learning ways to manage stress can help you avoid unconscious negative cues, such as frowning and holding a rigid posture.

Being empathetic requires you to make yourself vulnerable. When you hide behind an air of indifference, you make it harder for other people to trust or understand you. You also hold yourself back from feeling and understanding the full range of other people’s emotions. Here are some tips on opening up:

Reframe how you think of vulnerability . Maybe you’ve been taught that it’s a sign of weakness. Opening up to others—trusting them to listen and accept you and your flaws—requires courage.

Speak up . Tell your loved ones how you’re truly feeling. This requires you to reflect on your own emotional state as well as practice being open with others. Be prepared to accept and communicate intense emotions, including shame, jealousy, and grief . The more you talk about emotions, the more comfortable you’ll become. You’ll also notice that other people will be more willing to open up to you in return.

Say what you need . Make a habit of vocalizing your needs. Do you need someone to vent to? Or maybe you need physical help with something. Talking about your needs is healthier than suffering in silence. Not only does it make your life easier, but it also makes your loved ones feel trusted and needed.

Ease into it . If you have a hard time talking about your emotions or voicing your needs, just take things one step at a time. Maybe you can tell your friend about something that frustrated you about your workday. You can also tell them about parts of your day that made you feel excited and joyful. Or start by making a small request of your partner: “Can we go for a walk together this evening? Walking helps me feel less stressed.”

Don’t dwell too much on your reputation or perfection . If you’re overly focused on how other people perceive you, you might hesitate to be forthcoming. Maybe you feel you need to put up a facade to appear strong and unbothered. Try to let go of that idea and begin to embrace your imperfections. Being honest will draw you closer to the people who matter.

Emotional intelligence (sometimes called emotional quotient or EQ) is your ability to identify emotions and use them in ways that improve your life. For example, someone with high EQ knows how to relieve their own stress as well as deescalate heated arguments. EQ also enhances your ability to empathize with others, since it involves recognizing and understanding their emotions.

Emotional intelligence is often defined by four attributes: self-management, self-awareness, social awareness, and relationship management. Here are tips for building on each one:

Improve self-management by learning ways to cope with stress . Stress can make it difficult for you to be present, impairing your ability to assess emotions and social situations. So, learning a few stress-relieving strategies is an important step in enhancing your EQ. Practice relaxation techniques, such as deep breathing, to help you stay calm in the moment. Other practices, including exercise and meditation , are actions you can take each day to lower your overall stress.

Heighten self-awareness with mindfulness practices . Mindfulness involves focusing on the present moment but withholding judgment. You can use this to connect with and accept whatever emotions you’re currently feeling. Are you upset? Are you anxious? Rather than label these emotions as “bad” or “negative,” foster curiosity about them. What caused them? What do they physically feel like? Are they affecting your interactions with others? In addition to making you more self-aware, this practice can improve your ability to process emotions and increase emotional well-being.

[Read: Emotional Intelligence Toolkit]

Increase social awareness by focusing on other people . Mindfulness can help you with this task as well. Aim to be present with whoever you’re interacting with. What’s their body language like? Is there a topic they keep circling back to? Connect this social awareness to your self-awareness. Is the person saying or doing anything that is stirring your emotions? Maybe their body language is putting you at ease. Or maybe they’re saying something that makes you anxious.

Use conflict resolution skills to manage relationships . Even when you’re interacting with your best friend or closest family member, disagreements are bound to arise. You might have differing opinions on politics. Or perhaps your plans for a joint vacation don’t match up. Maybe one of you accidentally offends the other. Knowing how to pick your battles, compromise, and practice forgiveness can help you navigate these inevitable conflicts.

People are more likely to feel empathy toward people who are similar to them. You might feel more inclined to empathize with and help someone who looks like you, behaves like you, shares your goals, or experiences similar hardships. Unfortunately, this can lead to empathy biases when it comes to differences in factors like race, religion, or culture. Here are a few ways to counter that.

Actively expose yourself to new perspectives . If you’re an atheist, attend a religious ceremony. If you’re politically conservative, listen to podcasts that present a liberal perspective. If you’re used to city life, spend some time in rural communities. Look for common ground, but also acknowledge differences. You don’t necessarily have to agree with every perspective you come across. However, taking the time to simply listen with an open mind can help you see the humanity in people with different backgrounds or views.

Enjoy fiction . Even engaging with the perspectives of fictional characters can enhance your empathy. As you read a novel, you try to understand a character’s motives, goals, and emotional states. In other words, you’re exercising your ability to empathize. The same is true whenever you watch a character-driven television show or movie. Consider embracing novels, movies, and other works of art made by people from different cultural backgrounds. For example, if you’re white, read more books by Latino authors.

Be willing to question your assumptions . As you engage with people of different backgrounds, you’ll likely find that many of your earlier notions of them were inaccurate. It’s okay to admit to being wrong. Frame it as a learning experience. You can also begin to question your assumptions in daily situations. Perhaps your friend has a good reason for running late. Maybe that taxi driver was rude because he was under heavy stress. Practice using “what-ifs” to consider other perspectives.

It’s true that building empathy is a way to expand your social circle and boost your happiness. But don’t overlook the benefits it has for the people you encounter as well. Empathy can have a ripple effect. As you take the time to truly listen to others, you’re providing them with some level of emotional comfort. And it’s possible that you’re making it easier for them to trust, comfort, and empathize with even more people.

More Information

• Five Ways Empathy Is Good for Your Health - Focusing on others is important for them, but can also be good for you. (Psychology Today)
• Can I Have Empathy If I Am Autistic? - People with ASD can experience empathy—sometimes overwhelmingly. (Psychology Today)
• Want to feel more connected? Practice empathy - Three ways to practice empathy. (Harvard Health Publishing)
• Andersen, F. A., Johansen, A.-S. B., Søndergaard, J., Andersen, C. M., & Assing Hvidt, E. (2020). Revisiting the trajectory of medical students’ empathy, and impact of gender, specialty preferences and nationality: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education , 20(1), 52. Link
• Baskin-Sommers, A., Krusemark, E., & Ronningstam, E. (2014). Empathy in narcissistic personality disorder: From clinical and empirical perspectives. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment , 5(3), 323–333. Link
• Christov-Moore, L., & Iacoboni, M. (2019). Sex differences in somatomotor representations of others’ pain: A permutation-based analysis. Brain Structure and Function, 224(2), 937–947. Link
• Cultivating empathy . (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2022, from Link
• Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very Happy People. Psychological Science , 13(1), 81–84. Link
• Fletcher-Watson, S., & Bird, G. (2020). Autism and empathy: What are the real links? Autism , 24(1), 3–6. Link
• Healey, M. L., & Grossman, M. (2018). Cognitive and Affective Perspective-Taking: Evidence for Shared and Dissociable Anatomical Substrates. Frontiers in Neurology , 9, 491. Link
• Hojat, M., Vergare, M. J., Maxwell, K., Brainard, G., Herrine, S. K., Isenberg, G. A., Veloski, J., & Gonnella, J. S. (2009). The Devil is in the Third Year: A Longitudinal Study of Erosion of Empathy in Medical School: Academic Medicine , 84(9), 1182–1191. Link
• Kajonius, P. J., & Björkman, T. (2020). Individuals with dark traits have the ability but not the disposition to empathize. Personality and Individual Differences , 155, 109716. Link
• Kanske, P., Böckler, A., Trautwein, F.-M., Parianen Lesemann, F. H., & Singer, T. (2016). Are strong empathizers better mentalizers? Evidence for independence and interaction between the routes of social cognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 11(9), 1383–1392. Link
• Niedtfeld, I. (2017). Experimental investigation of cognitive and affective empathy in borderline personality disorder: Effects of ambiguity in multimodal social information processing. Psychiatry Research , 253, 58–63. Link
• Nunes, P., Williams, S., Sa, B., & Stevenson, K. (2011). A study of empathy decline in students from five health disciplines during their first year of training. International Journal of Medical Education , 2, 12–17. Link
• Riess, H. (2017). The Science of Empathy. Journal of Patient Experience , 4(2), 74–77. Link
• the iPSYCH-Broad autism group, the 23andMe Research Team, Warrier, V., Toro, R., Chakrabarti, B., Børglum, A. D., Grove, J., Hinds, D. A., Bourgeron, T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Genome-wide analyses of self-reported empathy: Correlations with autism, schizophrenia, and anorexia nervosa. Translational Psychiatry , 8(1), 35. Link
• Wagaman, M. A., Geiger, J. M., Shockley, C., & Segal, E. A. (2015). The Role of Empathy in Burnout, Compassion Satisfaction, and Secondary Traumatic Stress among Social Workers. Social Work , 60(3), 201–209. Link
• When watching others in pain, women’s brains show more empathy | UCLA . (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2022, from Link
• Women more likely than men to say they feel empathy for the suffering | Pew Research Center . (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2022, from Link
• Wu, R., Liu, L.-L., Zhu, H., Su, W.-J., Cao, Z.-Y., Zhong, S.-Y., Liu, X.-H., & Jiang, C.-L. (2019). Brief Mindfulness Meditation Improves Emotion Processing. Frontiers in Neuroscience , 13, 1074. Link

More in Communication

Boost your EQ to help find happiness and success

Effective Communication

Tips for building communication skills

How to read body language to build better relationships at home and work

Tips for handling conflicts, arguments, and disagreements

Tips and techniques for getting anger under control

Using laughter and play to resolve disagreements

The 5 Love Languages

What they are and how they influence relationships

Turning Off the Gas on Your Gaslighter

5 ways to deal with gaslighting

Professional therapy, done online

BetterHelp makes starting therapy easy. Take the assessment and get matched with a professional, licensed therapist.

Help us help others

Millions of readers rely on HelpGuide.org for free, evidence-based resources to understand and navigate mental health challenges. Please donate today to help us save, support, and change lives.

What Problems Does Emotional Intelligence Help To Solve?

In a time when the debate and discourse about mental health is on everyone’s lips, the concept of Emotional Intelligence runs through our daily conversations, introducing it into the collective imagination of many people. However, not everyone fully understands what emotional intelligence refers to, and the number of factors that it can influence in the daily lives of all people.

Emotional Intelligence refers, in a simplified way, to the ability to perceive, understand and manage our own emotions and those of the people around us. However, Understanding the influence of Emotional Intelligence goes beyond the emotional terrain also delving into self-concept, self-esteem and the quality of the relationships we build with other people, among other things.

In this article, we will focus on understanding the day-to-day problems and situations that Emotional Intelligence can face and manage, thus understanding the importance it has in our daily lives and the relevance of training it to improve our skills related to it.

Table of Contents

Understanding emotional intelligence and its components

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a crucial skill that goes beyond cognitive and technical ability. It is about recognizing, understanding and managing our own emotions, as well as understanding the emotions of others. At its core, EI is made up of several interrelated elements that form a comprehensive set of skills. Below, we will unravel some of these elements in more depth.

1. Self-awareness

The basis of EI lies in self-awareness, the ability to recognize and understand our own emotions . This component involves being connected to our feelings, identifying emotional patterns and understanding how these emotions impact our actions and decisions.

2. Self-regulation

Once we are aware of our emotions, self-regulation becomes a vital next step. It involves effectively managing emotions, controlling impulses, and staying calm in challenging situations. Self-regulation does not mean repressing emotions, but rather managing them constructively.

3. Motivation

EI also influences our intrinsic motivation. People with high EI usually have a clear vision of your goals, strong self-discipline and an ability to maintain focus even in difficult times. This motivation not only refers to personal goals, but also the ability to inspire and motivate others.

Empathy, another key component, is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It involves putting yourself in the shoes of others, perceiving their emotions and responding appropriately. Empathy is essential for building strong relationships and fostering mutual understanding.

5. Social skills

EI culminates in effective social skills. These include effective communication, conflict resolution, negotiation and the ability to work collaboratively. Developing good social skills is essential to building healthy and successful relationships both personally and professionally.

Common problems related to lack of emotional intelligence

The absence or deficiency of Emotional Intelligence can give rise to various problems that affect both personal life and interpersonal relationships. Identifying these problems is the first step to understanding the importance of cultivating EI in our daily lives. Some of the common and everyday problems related to a lack of emotional intelligence are:

1. Interpersonal conflicts

Lack of skills to understand and manage emotions can lead to interpersonal conflicts . The inability to adequately express emotions or understand the emotional signals of others can lead to misunderstandings and tensions in relationships.

2. Communication problems

Effective communication is closely linked to EI. Difficulty expressing emotions clearly or lack of empathy when communicating can lead to misunderstandings, emotional disconnection, and difficulties building strong relationships.

3. Stress and anxiety

Lack of emotional self-regulation can significantly contribute to stress and anxiety. People with low EI may find themselves overwhelmed by negative emotions, having difficulty managing the impact of stressful situations on their emotional well-being.

4. Low motivation and demotivation

Lack of intrinsic motivation can be an indicator of EI deficiency. Those who have not developed a clear understanding of their emotions and goals may experience a lack of direction and motivation in their daily activities.

5. Problems in labor relations

In the workplace, a lack of EI can manifest itself in difficulty working as a team, leading with empathy, or resolving conflicts constructively. These problems can affect the work environment and productivity .

6. Impact on mental health

The relationship between EI and mental health is undeniable. Lack of emotional skills can contribute to problems such as depression, loneliness and low self-esteem, as people can feel disconnected from themselves and others.

Its impact on daily life

Emotional Intelligence (EI) has a significant impact on personal life, shaping the way we face challenges and build relationships. Developing a strong EI can be the key to improving various aspects of our daily lives. Next, we will discuss some of the areas of daily life that can be most affected by emotional intelligence (or lack thereof).

1. Strengthening personal relationships

EI facilitates the construction and maintenance of healthy personal relationships. By understanding and responding appropriately to your own and others’ emotions, empathy and emotional connection are encouraged . This contributes to stronger and more satisfying relationships.

2. Effective communication

The ability to express emotions clearly and understand the emotional signals of others improves communication. Effective communication is essential to avoid misunderstandings, resolve conflicts and build an enriching environment both in the family and in society.

3. Stress and anxiety management

EI provides the tools necessary to manage stress and anxiety more effectively . By developing emotional self-regulation, people can face stressful situations with greater calm and resilience, thus preserving their mental well-being.

4. Improved decision making

Self-awareness and emotional self-regulation positively influence decision making. People with high EI tend to make more informed decisions, considering both the logic and emotional implications of their choices.

5. Development of self-esteem

EI is closely related to self-esteem. Understanding and accepting our emotions contributes to building a positive self-image. This translates into greater confidence and security in various life situations.

6. Promotion of personal motivation

EI also plays a crucial role in intrinsic motivation. People with high EI tend to have clear goals, strong self-discipline, and the ability to stay motivated even in the face of challenges.

How to develop emotional intelligence

Developing your Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a continuous process that involves awareness, practice and the will to improve. In this section, we are going to propose some practical strategies to cultivate and strengthen emotional skills in everyday life.

Remember that each person is different and unique. , and therefore, not all these strategies can be equally useful for all people. We advise you to experiment, explore and find out what is best for you.

1. Constant self-assessment

Start by examining your own emotions on a regular basis. Reflect on how you feel in various situations and analyze the emotional responses you experience. Constant self-assessment is essential to building strong self-awareness.

2. Practice of self-regulation

Learn to manage your emotions in a healthy way. Identify situations that trigger intense emotional responses and develop strategies to stay calm . Meditation and conscious breathing are valuable tools for self-regulation.

3. Cultivation of empathy

Putting yourself in the shoes of others is essential to developing empathy. Listen actively, observe non-verbal cues, and strive to understand others’ perspectives. Empathy strengthens relationships and fosters a sense of connection.

4. Improved social skills

Work on your social skills, including effective communication, conflict resolution, and collaboration. Practice assertiveness and clear emotional expression to strengthen your interpersonal relationships.

5. Promotion of personal motivation

Set clear and meaningful goals for yourself. Identify your values ​​and aspirations, and use these as a source of motivation . Connecting to your personal goals drives intrinsic motivation.

6. Continuous learning

EI is a constantly evolving skill. Read books, take courses, or look for online resources to help you better understand emotions and develop your emotional skills. Continuing education is key to emotional growth.

7. Gratitude practice

Cultivate a positive mindset by practicing gratitude. Recognize and appreciate the positive experiences in your life. Gratitude promotes a positive emotional state and strengthens emotional resilience .

In conclusion, Emotional Intelligence emerges as an essential tool to improve quality of life. Addressing problems such as interpersonal conflicts, lack of motivation and stress, its development positively impacts personal relationships and emotional well-being. Cultivating these skills is presented as a promising way to effectively navigate the complexity of emotions in our daily lives.

Develop emotional regulation and discover what your emotions can do for you

Posted on May 13, 2024 by Nina Tạ . This entry was posted in Life Events and Changes , Staying Healthy . Bookmark the permalink .

It’s easy to forget that facial expressions and body language communicate emotions, whether intended or not. What if you could exert more control over how you process and express these emotions?

It’s possible through a process called emotional regulation. Emotional regulation is the ability to manage your emotional responses through various strategies that reframe challenging circumstances. Developing these strategies empowers you to navigate life with the adaptability to balance spontaneous reactions with deliberate responses—enhancing your well-being.

Understanding and regulating your emotions can foster resilience, lead to more harmonious interactions with yourself and produce relief and satisfaction in work and life, according to Marsha Linehan , professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington.

Developing a skill set

In her work, Linehan breaks down many diverse emotions and ways of understanding why you feel what you are feeling. She poses a set of questions that are important to help process and regulate these common emotions — and start making them work for you rather than ruling you. These questions that you should be asking yourself include:

• What happened to prompt this emotion?
• What action was my emotion motivating and preparing me to do? (Was there a problem my emotion was getting me to solve, overcome or avoid?)
• What function or goal did my emotion serve?
• What was my facial expression? Posture? Gestures? Words? How was my communication to others?
• What did my emotions say to me?

Our emotions

You can apply these questions to Linehan’s extensive guide to emotions, ranging from anger, envy, fear and shame to love and happiness. From the list, here is a subset of emotions we most frequently feel:

Happiness words: joy, enjoyment, relief, amusement, enthrallment, hope, satisfaction, bliss

Some prompting events for feeling happiness: 

• Receiving a wonderful surprise
• Reality exceeding your expectations
• Receiving love, liking, or affection
• Being accepted by others

Biological changes and experiences of happiness:

• Feeling excited, physically energetic, and/or active
• Feeling your face flush
• Being bouncy or bubbly
• Feeling at peace

After effects of happiness:

• Being courteous or friendly to others
• Doing nice things for other people
• Remembering and imagining other times you have felt joyful

Fear words: anxiety, dread, horror, shock, tenseness, worry, uneasiness, overwhelmed

Some prompting events for feeling fear:

• Having your life, your health, or your well-being threatened
• Having to perform in front of others
• Pursuing your dreams

Biological changes and experiences of fear

• Breathlessness
• Fast Heartbeat
• Wanting to run away or avoid things
• A shaky or trembling voice

After effects of fear

• Narrowing of attention
• Losing your ability to focus or becoming disoriented or dazed
• Imagining the possibility of more loss or failure
• Isolating yourself

Envy words: bitterness, disgruntled, dissatisfied, greed, pettiness, resentment, downhearted

Some prompting events for feeling envy:

• Thinking about how unfair it is that you have such a bad lot in life compared to others
• Thinking you are inferior, a failure, or mediocre in comparison to others whom you want to be like
• Comparing yourself to people who have characteristics that you wish you had
• Thinking you are unappreciated

Biological changes and experiences of envy

• Muscles tightening
• Pain in the pit of the stomach
• Hating the object of envy
• Wanting the person or people you envy to lose what they have, to have bad luck, or to be hurt

After effects of envy

• Ruminating when others have had more than you
• Discounting what you do have; not appreciating things you have, or things others do for you
• Making resolutions to change

Guilt words: culpability, remorse, apologetic, regret, sorry

Some prompting events for feeling guilt:

• Doing or thinking something you believe in is wrong
• Doing or thinking something that violates your personal values
• Causing harm/damage to yourself
• Being reminded of something wrong you did in the past

Biological changes and experiences of guilt

• Hot, red face
• Jitteriness
• Nervousness
• Suffocating feeling within your body

After effects of guilt

• Making changes in behavior
• Joining self-help programs

Love words:  adoration, attraction, compassion, liking, tenderness, warmth, kindness

Some prompting events for feeling love:

• Being with someone you have fun with
• Receiving something you want, need or desire
• Sharing a special experience with a person
• Feeling physically attracted

Biological changes and experiences of love

• Feeling excited and full of energy
• Feeling self-confident
• Feeling invulnerable
• Wanting to see and spend time with a person

After effects of love

• Feeling forgetful or distracted; daydreaming
• Feeling “alive” and capable
• Feeling openness and trust
• Believing in yourself; believing you are wonderful, capable and competent

Where to seek help when you’re feeling negative

Emotions are something we all can feel deeply. Learning more about the exact emotions can better target the main issue to resolve and improve quality of life.

When looking for help, a great place to start is the Washington State Employee Assistance Program . WA EAP supports PEBB-eligible UW employees and their house members to help identify and resolve personal concerns to promote personal workplace well-being. WA EAP provides short-term solutions-focused counseling services that are easy to access. Your benefit includes up to 3 sessions per concern and covers all your household members. It can be used multiple times each year if you have new concerns to address.

If you are having any issues related to caregiving for a loved one, looking for housing resources, or in need of support for personal or professional challenges, UW WorkLife is a great source of information to help aid you in your multifaceted life.

All these options are meant to provide you with the resources and information you need to thrive both at work and in your personal life.

How to build on positive feelings  

If you are already feeling positive, here are some resources to keep that streak going.

Consider your impact on the community and how your participation can have a positive influence on others and yourself. The UW Combined Fund Drive is a great way to make a positive impact. The UW’s workplace giving program for staff, faculty and retirees offers information on thousands of nonprofit organizations and information on various ways to support them through financial donations or volunteering.

You can better connect with your UW community—while taking care of your mind and body—through The Whole U . Celebrating its 10 th anniversary, The Whole U was created for and by the UW to foster community engagement, promote holistic wellness and share the great perks and discounts available to UW faculty, staff and retirees. Check out the menu of events and free virtual fitness and mindfulness classes, plus the archive of hundreds of instructional and inspirational videos.

Information on Marsha Linehan’s work and emotional regulation provided by the UW Counseling Center .

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

• Find Flashcards
• Why It Works
• Tutors & resellers
• Content partnerships
• Teachers & professors
• Employee training

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome TM

Entrance exams, professional certifications.

• Foreign Languages
• Medical & Nursing

Humanities & Social Studies

Mathematics, health & fitness, business & finance, technology & engineering, food & beverage, random knowledge, see full index, 4330-chapter 6 flashcards preview, 4330 > 4330-chapter 6 > flashcards.

• Which of the following statements about the characteristics of communicators is false? a. Communicators are more persuasive when they are credible. b. Credibility primarily depends on how the receivers evaluate the communicator. c. Communicators who are more physically attractive are more persuasive. d. Credibility is a more important factor than attractiveness in persuasiveness. e. The impact of credibility on persuasion decreases over time.

d. Credibility is a more important factor than attractiveness in persuasiveness.

• Which of the following will lead us to perceive a communicator as more attractive? a. High-status. b. That we want to be like him/her. c. Similarity to us. d. All of the above. e. None of the above.

d. All of the above.

• The use of professional jargon within a team can: a. Help to improve communication among members with similar professional backgrounds. b. Can lead to miscommunication among members with different professional backgrounds. c. Create feelings of being left out by recipients who do not know the jargon. d. All of the above are true. e. None of the above are true.

d. All of the above are true.

• Messages are more persuasive when: a. They contain sophisticated and complex arguments. b. They only present one side of a position. c. They arouse emotions in the receivers. d. The audience is not involved in the topic. e. All of the above are true.

c. They arouse emotions in the receivers.

• Unequal organizational status has which of the following effects on communications within teams? a. Downward communications are typically more positive in tone. b. Upward communications are more frequent and longer. c. Horizontal communications are more interactive and causal. d. Equal status communications more often lead to confusion among receivers. e. All of the above are true.

c. Horizontal communications are more interactive and causal.

• In a team, senders often send briefer messages than are needed because: a. They want to withhold information to increase power. b. They overestimate receivers’ familiarity with the information. c. They misunderstand the intentions of the receiver. d. They have poor communication skills. e. They have higher status.

b. They overestimate receivers’ familiarity with the information.

• Supportive organizational climates in groups tend to: a. Have a problem orientation that emphasizes presenting the facts. b. Encourage trust and openness. c. Discourage conflict and withdrawal. d. Encourage equality among group members. e. All of the above are true.

e. All of the above are true.

• _________ refers to an environment in which people feel free to express their thoughts and feelings. a. Physical safety. b. Social safety. c. Psychological safety. d. Group safety. e. Team safety.

c. Psychological safety.

• Research suggests that when communicating, teams spend of their time: a. Reviewing common information everyone knows. b. Combining unique perspectives of various members. c. Withholding information from each other. d. Sharing new knowledge with each other. e. Pursuing ideas from those outside of the team

a. Reviewing common information everyone knows.

• Building trust in teams: a. Involves being trusting and being trustworthy. b. Is a slow process. c. Is important for positive team outcomes. d. Involves an effective leader. e. All of the above.

e. All of the above.

• ___________ is the ability to solve emotional problems. a. Emotional intelligence. b. Cognitive ability. c. Communication. d. Trust. e. None of the above.

a. Emotional intelligence

• Which of the following is NOT a component of emotional intelligence (EI)? a. Self-awareness. b. Empathy. c. Emotional regulation. d. Trustworthiness. e. Relationship management.

d. Trustworthiness

• Which of the following component of emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to respond to others’ emotions with respect and concern? a. Self-awareness. b. Empathy. c. Emotional regulation. d. Relationship management. e. None of the above.

d. Relationship management.

• Which of the following statements is FALSE regarding emotional intelligence? a. It is viewed as an individual skill. b. It is viewed as part of a team’s communication climate. c. It is important only in leaderless teams. d. It is related to higher performance. e. It can be improved.

c. It is important only in leaderless teams.

• Which of the following is NOT an important activity for a meeting facilitator? a. Advocate their position so the group understands it. b. Maintain an open communications climate. c. Manage disruptive behaviors. d. Manage differences among group members. e. Summarize important decisions.

a. Advocate their position so the group understands it.

• Member participation in a team discussion is related to: a. his/her status. b. his/her personality. c. the leader’s behavior. d. All of the above. e. None of the above.
• When a person summarizes a communication and checks to see if it has been received accurately, they are using what communication technique? a. Group process evaluation. b. Active listening. c. Problem Solving orientation. d. Defensive communication. e. Networking

b. Active listening.

• Group members can help to build trust within a team by: a. Self-disclosing as much as possible about themselves. b. Showing acceptance and support for other’s communications. c. Not expressing your feelings when you disagree with others. d. Limiting one’s participation when a conflict occurs. e. All of the above.

b. Showing acceptance and support for other’s communications.

• Which of the following is NOT a guideline to effectively running the virtual meeting? a. Publish the meeting ahead of time. b. Break the meeting into short chunks. c. Script the meeting more loosely than a face-to-face meeting. d. Create a common visual focus during the meeting. e. Provide separate communication channels for task and process issues.

c. Script the meeting more loosely than a face-to-face meeting.

• Which of the following is NOT a guideline for dealing with emotions in teams? a. Encourage members to share emotions about personal issues. b. Understand feelings rather than evaluate them. c. Encourage open communication when emotions are related to the task. d. Process feelings in the group. e. All of the above are ways to deal with emotions in teams.

a. Encourage members to share emotions about personal issues.

Decks in 4330 Class (8):

• 4330 Chapter 1
• 4330 Chapter 2
• 4330 Chapter 3
• 4330 Chapter 4
• 4330 Chapter 5
• 4330 Chapter 6
• 4330 Chapter 7
• 4330 Chapter 8
• Corporate Training
• Teachers & Schools
• Android App
• Help Center
• Law Education
• All Subjects A-Z
• All Certified Classes
• Earn Money!

• Astrology News
• Horoscope News

Virgo, Horoscope Today, May 14, 2024: Ideal day for problem-solving

About the Author

AstroDevam is a premium organisation providing ancient and authentic knowledge of Astrology, Vastu, Numerology, and Innovative Corporate Solutions with a contemporary perspective. AstroDevam, having patrons in more than 100 countries, has been promoted by Achary Anita Baranwal and Achary Kalki Krishnan, who not only have Master's Degrees in Astrology, but are engaged in teaching Scientific Astrology, Vastu, and Numerology for more than three decades. Read More

Visual Stories

The same is true for relationships inside the company, Bennett adds. “Projects can be challenging, and when you have a team that goes through challenging things together, those relationships get stronger,” he says.

In that same vein, rather than running into a heavily hierarchical, top-down leadership structure, new employees are assigned a mentor or coach to help with their development, while being able to work directly with people at all levels of the company.

“I think we’re a fairly flat company – we don’t have a lot of tiers to work up,” says Mason Burgess, a software engineer who joined Indesign two years ago. That collaboration goes all the way to the top with engineers even working directly with company president and CEO Jerry Gotway on some projects, something Mason says he’s experienced firsthand. It’s not that smaller teams aren’t assigned to specific projects – they are; it’s just that everyone is willing to lend a hand if their expertise is a good fit and help is needed, employees say.

The complex and varied nature of the work certainly demands it – and that also keeps it interesting. “The variety is very fun,” Bennett says. “We work on consumer electronics, industrial systems, medical products – all kinds of things.”

Employees say the company offers competitive benefits; flexibility, with a hybrid work model, giving employees the ability to work from home and at the office; and opportunities to relax, recoup and bond with fellow employees through everything from organized walks at nearby Fort Harrison State Park to video game tournaments over lunch breaks, says Austin Kirchhoff, a principal software engineer who has been with the company for more than 16 years.

That latter also helps coworkers connect, Kirchhoff says, which helps with retention. “It’s really those connections with people that keep you tied to the company.”

Bottom Line

•  Founded:  1997

•  Headquarters:  Indianapolis

•  Company profile:  Multi-discipline engineering design firm that develops electronic products for consumer, medical, computer, communications, military industrial and transportation markets.

•  Locations:  One

•  Number of employees:  69

•  Special award:  Appreciation

•  Website:   indesign-llc.com

Self-Esteem

It’s ok you can’t solve every problem, trying to “fix" everything can leave you feeling like a failure..

Updated May 10, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• What Is Self-Esteem?
• Find a therapist near me
• Your intrinsic value is more than what you can do for other people.

You are still worthwhile and can be successful, even if you don’t have all the solutions.

• Consider which decision will make you feel you’ve stayed true to your values.

In coaching others, I often discuss problem-solving strategies to help individuals think creatively and consider many options when they are faced with challenging situations.

Problem solving 1-2 includes the following:

• Define the problem, identify obstacles, and set realistic goals .
• Generate a variety of alternative solutions to overcome obstacles identified.
• Choose which idea has the highest likelihood to achieve the goal.
• Try out the solution in real-life and see if it worked or not.

Problem-solving strategies can be helpful in many situations. Thinking creatively and testing out different potential solutions can help you come up with alternative ways of solving your problems.

While many problems can be solved, there are also situations in which there is no “perfect” solution or in which what seems to be the best solution still leaves you feeling unsatisfied or like you’re not doing enough.

I encourage you to increase your comfort around the following three truths:

1. You can’t always solve everyone else’s problems.

2. You can’t always solve all of your own problems.

3. You are not a failure if you can’t solve every problem.

You can’t always solve everyone else’s problems.

When someone around you needs help, do you feel compelled to find solutions to their problem?

Are you seen as the problem solver at your job or in your close relationships?

Does it feel uncomfortable for you to listen to someone tell you about a problem and not offer solutions?

There are times when others come to you because they know you can help them solve a problem. There are also times when the other person is coming to you not for a solution to their problem, but for support, empathy, and a listening ear.

Your relationships may be negatively impacted if others feel that you don’t fully listen and only try to “fix” everything for them. While this may feel like a noble act, it may lead the other person to feel like they have failed or that you think they are unable to solve their own problems.

Consider approaching such situations with curiosity by saying to the other person:

• As you share this information with me, tell me how I can best support you.
• What would be most helpful right now? Are you looking for an empathetic ear or want to brainstorm potential next steps?
• I want to be sure I am as helpful as I can be right now; what are you hoping to get out of our conversation?

You can’t always solve all of your own problems.

We are taught from a young age that problems have a solution. For example, while solving word problems in math class may not have been your favorite thing to do, you knew there was ultimately a “right” answer. Many times, the real world is much more complex, and many of the problems that you face do not have clear or “right” answers.

You may often be faced with finding solutions that do the most good for the most amount of people, but you know that others may still be left out or feel unsatisfied with the result.

Your beliefs about yourself, other people, and the world can sometimes help you make decisions in such circumstances. You may ask for help from others. Some may consider their faith or spirituality for guidance. While others may consider philosophical theories.

Knowing that there often isn’t a “perfect” solution, you may consider asking yourself some of the following questions:

• What’s the healthiest decision I can make? The healthiest decision for yourself and for those who will be impacted.
• Imagine yourself 10 years in the future, looking back on the situation: What do you think the future-you would encourage you to do?
• What would a wise person do?
• What decision will allow you to feel like you’ve stayed true to your values?

You are not a failure if you can’t solve all of the problems.

If you have internalized feeling like you need to be able to solve every problem that comes across your path, you may feel like a failure each time you don’t.

It’s impossible to solve every problem.

Your intrinsic value is more than what you can do for other people. You have value because you are you.

Consider creating more realistic and adaptive thoughts around your ability to help others and solve problems.

Some examples include:

• I am capable, even without solving all of the problems.
• I am worthwhile, even if I’m not perfect.
• What I do for others does not define my worth.
• In living my values, I know I’ve done my best.

I hope you utilize the information above to consider how you can coach yourself the next time you:

• Start to solve someone else’s problem without being asked.
• Feel stuck in deciding the best next steps.
• Judge yourself negatively.

1. D'zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of abnormal psychology, 78(1), 107.

2. D’Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (2010). Problem-solving therapy. Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies, 3(1), 197-225.

Julie Radico, Psy.D. ABPP, is a board-certified clinical psychologist and coauthor of You Will Get Through This: A Mental Health First-Aid Kit.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

REVIEW article

This article is part of the research topic.

Biomechanics, Sensing and Bio-inspired Control in Rehabilitation and Wearable Robotics

Anthropomorphic Motion Planning for Multi-degree-of-freedom Arms Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
• 2 Department of Neurobiology, School of Basic Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

With the development of technology, the humanoid robot is no longer a concept, but a practical partner with the potential to assist people in industry, healthcare and other daily scenarios. The basis for the success of humanoid robots is not only their appearance, but more importantly their anthropomorphic behaviors, which is crucial for the human-robot interaction. Conventionally, robots are designed to follow meticulously calculated and planned trajectories, which typically rely on predefined algorithms and models, resulting in the inadaptability to unknown environments. Especially when faced with the increasing demand for personalized and customized services, predefined motion planning cannot be adapted in time to adapt to personal behavior. To solve this problem, anthropomorphic motion planning has become the focus of recent research with advances in biomechanics, neurophysiology, and exercise physiology which deepened the understanding of the body for generating and controlling movement. However, there is still no consensus on the criteria by which anthropomorphic motion is accurately generated and how to generate anthropomorphic motion. Although there are articles that provide an overview of anthropomorphic motion planning such as sampling-based, optimization-based, mimicry-based, and other methods, these methods differ only in the nature of the planning algorithms and haven’t yet been systematically discussed in terms of the basis for extracting upper limb motion characteristics. To better address the problem of anthropomorphic motion planning, the key milestones and most recent literature have been collated and summarized, and three crucial topics are proposed to achieve anthropomorphic motion, which are motion redundancy, motion variation, and motion coordination. The three characteristics are interrelated and interdependent, posing the challenge for anthropomorphic motion planning system. To provide some insights for the research on anthropomorphic motion planning, and improve the anthropomorphic motion ability, this article proposes a new taxonomy based on physiology, and a more complete system of anthropomorphic motion planning by providing a detailed overview of the existing methods and their contributions.

Keywords: Anthropomorphic, motion planning, ARMS, motion redundancy, motion variation, Motion coordination

Received: 20 Feb 2024; Accepted: 13 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Zheng, Han and LIANG. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mx. Yunyun Han, Department of Neurobiology, School of Basic Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei Province, China Dr. Jiejunyi LIANG, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, Hubei Province, China

People also looked at